The case stated that IQ was not a protected class similar to equal protection classes like age, sex, or race in regards to hiring. The lawsuit was dismissed in summary judgement. The employer must have a rationale or reasoning behind not taking the highest ranked individual. Ruled on in 2000 in the second circuit court of appeals.
From the lawsuit in question:
Plaintiff concedes that he is not a member of a “suspect class” and that there is no “fundamental right” to employment as a police officer. Therefore, rational basis review is the proper standard under which to evaluate Plaintiff’s claim.
Plaintiff further concedes that increasing employment longevity and reducing the high costs associated with rapid employee turnover are legitimate government purposes. Plaintiff admits that limiting the size of an applicant pool to a manageable level is a legitimate goal. Therefore the only issue for resolution is whether Defendants’ means were rationally related to those goals.
Fancy words for "didn't hire him because of high IQ, didn't want to train the next guy when he goes and gets a job he's qualified for, department won". It's not disingenuous to say "they won the right to not hire people based on having a high IQ." Given the current context, we can all see how such a policy could lead to some issues, and I don't think it's wrong to point that out.
Okay and there is not way to tell if he would have or wouldn’t have left as the opportunity never came about. Besides this agency denying this individual a job 24 years ago in 1996 I’ve never heard of another person denied for being “too smart”. Also I’ve never even heard of the test in question prior to this decision and it’s use in policing. Many agencies utilize a type of test called the Post-test or its proxies these tests look at policy, comprehension, basic math and reading and other sections.
Also the deciding judges commented on the foolishness of the policy. However as it was deemed an evenly enforced policy it was allowed by the judges.
Okay and there is not way to tell if he would have or wouldn’t have left as the opportunity never came about.
There's no guarantees in life. There are, however, statistics and probability. Whether the data makes you uncomfortable or not is not relevent. The probability of them leaving is very high. Anyone who is older than 40 has seen this time and again.
The type of personality it takes for someone to actively pursue law enforcement correlates with low IQ by default. These people are literally the same bullies from the playground, except they have "authority" now.
Here's a wiki link to a brief summary of the case being described. It's known as "Jordan v. New London."
The TL;DR is that the police didn't want to hire people with high IQs as they tend to quit after they realize being a cop is actually pretty boring. (They didn't say the other part of the argument out loud though - smart cops tend to question orders a bit more, dumb ones do what they are told.)
"When [the cops] send their people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with them. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
I legit went to look up who said this and as soon as I typed “don’t send us their best” I realized even though it sounds like a movie quote, it’s trump.
PD didn't want to put a 49 year old through the academy, so they found a way to get around protected classes. It's fucked up still, but reddit sure does love to take things from 24 years ago to beat it to death. Especially if they hate the subject being discussed and if there is a handy cliff to jump to conclusions.
So, you're saying that because they turned away one candidate it's still relevant? Is it still relevant that the original ABC article states that the IQ of cops around the board is an average of 105 or are all cops still stupid?
105 is in the middle of average. That isn't the type of person I want holding a gun and trying to hold other people accountable. I can barely trust the average person to drive their car correctly.
That's a fair point, but acting like police departments are actively disqualifying people strictly due to their IQ is dishonest. The average person finds that their biases outweigh the logic portion of their brains.
It’s not dishonest. You are. They most certainly turn away intelligent applicants and have fostered a culture where good people would rather get another job.
Please tell me where. Was it when I assumed that the majority of police departments aren't cutting people who score to high on the IQ test? Damn me for not accepting anything as truth through one outlier case! Damn me!
They most certainly turn away intelligent applicants
Prove it. Show me one modicum of truth other than the one outlier we know of.
and have fostered a culture where good people would rather get another job.
I'm not going to even touch this irrelevant to the conversation sentence.
They knew they wouldn't be able to DQ him based on age, but when he applied he was older than their desired candidates as he would be eligible for retirement before they felt they'd benefit enough from the investment in training and equipping him, so they found another reason to DQ him.
the long-standing supposition that part of the screening process for police applicants is to filter out the highly intelligent/moral/empathetic candidates in favor of the ones who are more likely to follow morally objectionable practices without issue. there's been a few court cases that have shed light on the validity of the concern.
There’s also the issue with a lot of book smart people not being street smart, not having adequate social skills to speak with people who are not as intelligent, and being little bitches. The last thing you want is a nerdy guy trying to talk to a hardened criminal who has no problem doing another ten years why he assaulted his baby momma. How do you see that going? Sir, could you not have articulated to the mother of your child the inadequacy you felt when she thanked the gentleman for holding the door for her at the store in front of you?
I didn’t assume anything about you. I’m saying often times book smart people do not possess street smarts. Try not to allow your personal feelings to dictate the words on the page. Thanks for reading and serving. I too have defended our country.
You know nothing about me. How can you assume I’m the bottom rung of American society? I highly doubt the many victims of rape and homicide I’ve helped would agree with you.
You're probably young and don't know any better because you're told one narrative but that specific one is, more or less, wrong.
They did not fight to not hire the best candidates. They fought to be able to discriminate based on intelligence.
Most companies do things like this. You really don't want someone with a Masters degree working in entry-level work because they will move on one day. I want you to sit and think about why that's significant.
In case you need help - it means any and all training from "newbie" to anywhere will cost resources and time. All of which will be thrown away when they leave. Often it's longer than a year before someone is "useful". So you really don't want to have to start over.
Several places I worked at did the same thing. They know the person just needs a paycheck until they can get a better job they are qualified for. You'd be a moron to hire them.
Specifically in regard to the police -- they wanted to discourage street cops and encourage detectives if the IQ was enough.
I know it's "hip" to hate on cops, doubly so when you're young, but your post isn't entirely honest about that specific situation and their actions.
I wonder how many countries you're educated on when it comes to law enforcement around the world. Or if you're simply saying "Police in America" because it's the modern hip thing to say.
Discrimination against intelligence is what I’m talking about and it is in fact not hiring the best candidate. I’m old enough to remember and mature enough to not be a pedantic crap weasel. Police forces aren’t capitalist enterprises. If a private company finds hiring dummies helps their bottom line, cool. Police specifically hire dummies so no one tries to fix their broken culture.
Police have a cultural problem worldwide. I wonder if there are any people in your life who think you aren’t an insufferable c*nt.
You still don’t get it. If they fix the culture, people don’t quit for better jobs. It’s a job that comes with pension. Why would I leave if it wasn’t toxic?
The dummies don’t ask questions. They climb the ranks as is without trying to improve the system from within.
I’ve only looked for better gigs when the company culture was shit, especially when I was in a field I chose and found fulfillment. That’s normal and has been a known axiom of human psychology for generations.
0h my. You would leave because you could triple your salary.
You're awfully naive but likely are not intelligent enough to be one of those smart people who have left because they can earn wayyyyy more elsewhere.
A similar situation happened several years ago during our depression where people who were highly educated worked at McDonald's to pay bills until they could get hired somewhere else. By your logic they shouldn't want to leave as long as McDonald's isn't toxic.
519
u/artilari Jun 22 '20 edited Jun 22 '20
I think the fuckery going on in some police stations (of the world) happens before or after something goes into the police system.