I do hope this gets looked at by the higher courts, more for amusement's sake.
Generally, the federal courts are required to protect against discrimination (or at least apply strict scrutiny) only when a statute or test involves a "suspect classification". What exactly does that phrase mean? Sandra Day O'Connor would have said that it meant any characteristic that was immutable to a person's identity (race, gender, etc.). I don't think we can be entirely confident that this is still the way the current Supreme Court would analyze the issue though, considering that they are hesitant to rule on cases involving sexual orientation. So, even though intelligence is almost certainly an immutable characteristic (barring intentional brain damage), the question is.....is intelligence a suspect classification for the government to use to discriminate?
Slashdot Mirror
I do hope this gets looked at by the higher courts, more for amusement's sake. Generally, the federal courts are required to protect against discrimination (or at least apply strict scrutiny) only when a statute or test involves a "suspect classification". What exactly does that phrase mean? Sandra Day O'Connor would have said that it meant any characteristic that was immutable to a person's identity (race, gender, etc.). I don't think we can be entirely confident that this is still the way the current Supreme Court would analyze the issue though, considering that they are hesitant to rule on cases involving sexual orientation. So, even though intelligence is almost certainly an immutable characteristic (barring intentional brain damage), the question is.....is intelligence a suspect classification for the government to use to discriminate?