Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores

Posted by timothy on from the breaking-the-curve dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test. Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected." Update: 04/16 22:01 GMT by T : Mea culpa. This story slipped through; consider it a time-machine / late-April Fool's day joke, please.

30 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Published: September 09, 1999

    1. Re:Seriously... by grayshirtninja · · Score: 3, Informative

      Slashdot is usually slow, but this is just ridiculous.

    2. Re:Seriously... by by+(1706743) · · Score: 2

      You might find this interesting, too.

    3. Re:Seriously... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      In other news the plaintiff died of prostate cancer last year, the police department in question no longer exists, and the judge who ruled on this case quit his job and became a spokesman for the gay rights movement. Wtf - only 12 years... did they even have internet back then?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Seriously... by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah the excuse was that it's not discrimination because they refused to higher ANY high IQ applicants. So by that same standard, if you refuse to hire any black people you are not discriminating either. Wtf - only in America, land of the double standard.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Seriously... by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Apparently Slashdot has the same policy.
      j/k

    6. Re:Seriously... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      Can't argue the halving of IQ when the adrenaline gets going.

      My own IQ marker has alway been the size of a group of males. Individually, any one of the boys might be pretty bright. But, two boys together share half the IQ that they started with. Three boys together halve their IQ's again. By the time you get four boys together, they don't have enough smarts to pour piss out of a boot. Larger groups are likely to die of asphyxiation, because they aren't smart enough to breathe.

      Combine my law with yours, and get a group of 4 adrenaline junkies together, and they probably suck the IQ out of anyone around them. Kind of like a black hole sucks energy and matter.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  2. Holy Old Story! by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Informative
    Anyone pay attention to the first line?

    Published: September 09, 1999

    This happened almost twelve years ago...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Holy Old Story! by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Awww now I miss the the stupid things the government did before 9/11 turned them into wholesale Constitution tramplers.

    2. Re:Holy Old Story! by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is just in: Napoleon died.

    3. Re:Holy Old Story! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Informative

      He was subsequently invited to apply to the San Fransisco force.

      Anybody know if he wound up there? Apparently a mayor has the same name, so it's hard to search.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Holy Old Story! by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Funny

      Awww now I miss the the stupid things the government did before 9/11 turned them into wholesale Constitution tramplers.

      You're new here, I see - or at least newer than me. Let me clue you in on something; slashdot is a pro-conservative site.

      If you want to be up-modded, just praise Bush, Reagan, and all the greatness that came immediately after 9/11, when the government was working in your best interest. Further, calling the current POTUS the great socialist satan will accomplish similar results. You are daring to suggest that what happened immediately after 9/11 might not have been done with everyone's best interests in mind - prepare to be moderated "troll".

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    5. Re:Holy Old Story! by causality · · Score: 2

      The politicians who call themselves "conservative"... I'd like to know what they are conserving. Certainly it isn't tax money or political power.

      The old answer to this question was along the lines of, "well, a 'conservative' is someone who doesn't want to rock the boat, doesn't want to make any sudden or drastic changes to society"... to that I'd say that the way government has become much larger and more authoritarian during my lifetime alone, or since 9/11 alone, represents a drastic and sudden departure from what were once traditional American values. Much of that was done by those calling themselves "conservative". So that definition is also a no-go.

      Maybe "Liberals" and "Anti-Liberals" would make better labels. For some reason a lot of media personalities hate the word "neo-con" or "neo-conservative" but it was created from the need to distinguish what the word once meant from what it now represents.

      Note that all I want is a smaller and less powerful government that doesn't try to protect me from every perceived threat, doesn't try to manage my life for me, doesn't try to separate me from the consequences of my decision-making. I don't want their brand of "for my safety" and "for my own good". I don't want there to ever be a law against consentual activity among adults. For those who find that distasteful, who are fearful, or who want to control what others do, there are many existing countries where you'd be happier. Why not go there instead of trying to make this one a clone of those? I want there to be at least one remaining nation with a minimal government, such that anyone who doesn't like that can go to any other nation on earth.

      Is that so much to ask? Or is this like the very worst of religion, where it is not good enough that the "infidels" live in peace and leave you alone, their very existence is offensive to you?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    6. Re:Holy Old Story! by craighansen · · Score: 2

      http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-09-16/news/17698950_1_insurance-salesman-intelligence-test-police-chief-fred-lau Robert Jordan -- the would-be policeman from Connecticut who scored too high on an intelligence test -- is not interested in becoming a San Francisco cop, despite a personal invitation from Police Chief Fred Lau. "I don't think I could afford to make the move. It's not that I don't want to," Jordan said yesterday from his home in Waterford, Conn. ... Lau said he was not guaranteeing a job to Jordan -- or anyone else who applies with similar intellectual vigor. But Lau said that the San Francisco Police Department, which is set to hire 200 officers in the next few months, would do well with people such as Jordan, a 48-year-old former insurance salesman. Out of more than 2,000 officers who work for the San Francisco police, at least 10 have law degrees and a handful of others have doctorates, Lau said.

    7. Re:Holy Old Story! by xero314 · · Score: 2

      Note that all I want is a smaller and less powerful government that doesn't try to protect me from every perceived threat, doesn't try to manage my life for me, doesn't try to separate me from the consequences of my decision-making.

      I have an idea. Since people want very different things, we could break up the country into smaller autonomous regions that could regulate themselves. This way if a group of people want to allow gay marriage for example, they could move to a region that supports gay marriage, but it wouldn't mean that all the other regions had to.

      And since each of these regions would be to small to be able to defend themselves from larger more powerful governments, and so the people of these regions could interact and move between them freely we could create a union between all the regions

      We could call the regions "states" and we could call the over all union, "United States". We could even write a new constitution over this union and include some wording that would protect the states ability to have their own regulations. I would probably word this clause something like "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

      No that would never work. Someone would add in some clause to regulate trade between the states, so that the states didn't rip each other off, or so people didn't have to go through foreign currency exchange when they travelled between the states. And then some politicians would figure out how to us this clause as a loop hole to force regulation on the states.

  3. This raises interesting new legal possibilities... by Nick_13ro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Next I propose they develop a skin pigmentation test. Those with too much skin pigmentation, too colored let's say, are to be barred from the police force. Naturally this would also be ok since the same standard was applied to everyone, right ?

  4. Like The Old Joke by kittylyst · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, as it's old news, here's an old joke to go with it: "Why do policemen always go around in threes? One that can read, one that can write, and one to keep an eye on the two dangerous intellectuals."

  5. Seriously? by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Timothy you are an idiot.

    I take it slashdot uses the same policy.

    1. Re:Seriously? by bird · · Score: 2

      Just for commenters.

      Oh...

  6. Operating System by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey, did you guys hear about that guy from Finland who wrote his own operating system? What a cool little project....

    --
    Huh?
  7. Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities by dirty_ghost · · Score: 2

    He does not want to lose eligibility with the New London police.

  8. The Rationale Behind It by asackett · · Score: 4, Informative

    FWIW, way back when this story was news instead of history I asked my county's Sheriff about the rationale behind this kind of thing. He explained it thusly:

    "Suppose you're an officer and you're called to a convenience store robbery. When you arrive, you find the clerk on the floor has been shot and will certainly die if you don't render aid immediately. Meanwhile, you see the robber escaping in your neighbor's car so you know it's stolen. This fits the MO of an armed robber who's been in the region for a few weeks, never strikes in the same town twice, and always kills the clerks he robs. There are no witnesses. If you render aid to the fallen clerk the criminal will escape and will almost certainly kill again, but if you pursue the criminal the clerk will certainly die and you may not succeed in apprehending the criminal anyway. What do you do?"

    I immediately responded that I'd pursue the criminal. He went on to explain:

    "It's not really important which option you choose because in the end some innocent is going to die. What's important is that you quickly choose a response and follow it through to the end. The rationale behind not hiring those of exceptional intelligence is that they'll waste time thinking through their options hoping to find the optimal solution when there really isn't one instead of just springing into action."

    It's horribly flawed logic, but that's the general consensus among law enforcement so it's self-reinforcing. You can't promote thinking leaders from within a force that doesn't include thinking officers.

    --

    Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

    1. Re:The Rationale Behind It by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know the sheriff was trying to give an example of a dilemma that's likely to come up in police work, but the example he chose seems like a no-brainer, with a very clear right and wrong answer. You call in a description of your neighbor's car so other officers can look for it, then help the clerk. He'll probably be able to ID the robber or at least provide some solid clues in the event the suspect escapes the dragnet, but he can't do that if he's dead.

      If you let the clerk die and fail to catch the suspect, you're no better off than you were before, and you have one more stiff in the morgue. Even if you do catch the robber, the dead clerk will still haunt your whole department, in the form of bad press and lawsuits.

      One option will be second-guessed endlessly regardless of the final outcome, and the other will make you look like a hero, or at least someone who tried to help.

      What's important is that you quickly choose a response and follow it through to the end.

      Reminds me of a recent case in Seattle, where a roid-raging berserker with a badge emptied his Glock into a bum who was whittling with a pocket knife, after giving him four seconds to "comply." Somebody forgot to tell him that Robocop was not a training film.

    2. Re:The Rationale Behind It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Reminds me of a recent case in Seattle, where a roid-raging berserker with a badge emptied his Glock into a bum who was whittling with a pocket knife, after giving him four seconds to "comply." Somebody forgot to tell him that Robocop was not a training film.

      You're thinking of the murder of John T. Williams:

      http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012784234_copshooting02m.html

      He was a 50 year-old local totem / wood-carver with a history of alcohol abuse and troubles with his hearing. Shot for crossing the street while whittling a block of wood.

  9. Re:Not unexpected... by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First class people choose first class people; second class people choose fourth class people; third class people choose ninth class people; and so on; and so on.

    It's a failure of the moderation system that I need to scroll past a dozen irrelevant comments about the article's date before I find one that addresses the actual topic. Anyway...

    Not only are you right about this, but the logic the judge used was quite faulty and I can trivially demonstrate why:

    Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

    Using that logic, they could discriminate racially or on religious grounds. "Anyone who scored too black was rejected" or "anyone who scored too Muslim was rejected". I mean hey, they apply that standard to everyone so it surely could not contradict the principles of equal protection. That's why this is absurd.

    I'll never understand what it is about a law degree and a bench that fundamentally distorts someone's ability to use solid logic. If I can see the flaw in seconds couldn't this judge maybe think on it a bit before committing it to a ruling that will affect a man's life?

    It's as though the judge had a personal objection to having high-IQ police officers and was looking for an excuse to disallow them.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  10. Re:Not unexpected... by arkenian · · Score: 4, Informative

    Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

    Using that logic, they could discriminate racially or on religious grounds. "Anyone who scored too black was rejected" or "anyone who scored too Muslim was rejected". I mean hey, they apply that standard to everyone so it surely could not contradict the principles of equal protection. That's why this is absurd.

    I'll never understand what it is about a law degree and a bench that fundamentally distorts someone's ability to use solid logic. If I can see the flaw in seconds couldn't this judge maybe think on it a bit before committing it to a ruling that will affect a man's life?

    It's as though the judge had a personal objection to having high-IQ police officers and was looking for an excuse to disallow them.

    So I actually went and looked up the original judgement and appellate judgement on this because it was so weird. The actual argument the HR department made was that smart people would quit quickly and they chose less smart people so they wouldn't get bored being a patroller. The Court determined that they had reached this decision on a rational basis (while noting that the truth of this was beyond the scope of the Court's right to decide, for a variety of reasons) and that since they were applying the policy evenly, there was no grounds for the officer to complain.

  11. Oh my God.. by multipartmixed · · Score: 2

    ..did you tell them about Haiti? And Japan?

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  12. Re:Not unexpected... by omfgnosis · · Score: 2

    Uh. "applying the policy evenly" is exactly the same insane logic. You can't apply a discriminatory policy evenly. If this is defensible, then so are minimum-IQ poll tests.

  13. Re:Not unexpected... by omfgnosis · · Score: 2

    Make duration of employment a condition of employment, with only very clear exceptions.

  14. Re:Not unexpected... by shentino · · Score: 2

    The issue isn't that politicians aren't stupid scum. They are.

    The issue is that they are not actually the ones at the top controlling everything.