Wow... This is actually depressing

[Lewkowski]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/01/co...ople-from-beco

Reader Ryan McCormick sends this amazing story from ABC News. Robert Jordan wanted to be a cop and he applied for a job as such in New London, Connecticut.

His problem? He scored too high on the IQ proxy test and was thus excluded from consideration.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

Jordan sued for discrimination but to no avail. Here's what a federal court ruled:

The U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.

Too smart for police work, "Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test."

*****

So the whole discrimination thing is silly but really... deliberately NOT hiring intelligent people. The level of dumb is amazing.

[Flixy]

If they're worried about smart people getting bored, maybe offer fast-track promotions to more challenging jobs for those that can take it?

[RandBlade]

Surely you want the best and brightest as detectives etc


I'd really hope this is a hoax.

[Timbuk2]

Surely you want the best and brightest as detectives etc


I'd really hope this is a hoax.

Not detective. Beat cop.

I'd theorise that for beat cops the force prioritises grunts who follow orders and not question them. In other words lower wattage bulbs.

Just like in the army I suppose - the officer class is educated, with an implied intelligence, and they occupy the higher ranks. The grunts; privates and sergeants etc; are non-educated, with an implied lower-intelligence. Those who are required to follow orders without question.

And those who do question will get frustrated/fed up/bored and realise that this job is not for them, and leave. Reducing turnover is the reason stated by the force as the reason for this recruitment directive. Makes sense to me.

The fact that this directive has been made explicit here is what I find a little unusual, if anything. A result of this case being taken to court, so the standards applied by the force in its recruitment process are laid bare I suppose.

[Ominous Gamer]

This happened pre-2000. I'd love a current version of this story.

[RandBlade]

Not detective. Beat cop.

I'd theorise that for beat cops the force prioritises grunts who follow orders and not question them. In other words lower wattage bulbs.

Just like in the army I suppose - the officer class is educated, with an implied intelligence, and they occupy the higher ranks. The grunts; privates and sergeants etc; are non-educated, with an implied lower-intelligence. Those who are required to follow orders without question.

And those who do question will get frustrated/fed up/bored and realise that this job is not for them, and leave. Reducing turnover is the reason stated by the force as the reason for this recruitment directive. Makes sense to me.

The fact that this directive has been made explicit here is what I find a little unusual, if anything. A result of this case being taken to court, so the standards applied by the force in its recruitment process are laid bare I suppose.

And who would make the detectives of tomorrow if not the beat cops of today? You can be promoted from one to the other so no reason to prevent an intelligent individual from working.

[Timbuk2]

This happened pre-2000. I'd love a current version of this story.

Hm.

Didn't notice the date when I read the original article from the link. Lewk up to date as ever then.

And who would make the detectives of tomorrow if not the beat cops of today? You can be promoted from one to the other so no reason to prevent an intelligent individual from working.

Perhaps. And while the logic of this exclusive recruitment process might make sense, primarily in the context of high-turnover, it is still discrimination.

TBH, given that, I'm surprised at the ruling; But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.

Anyways. You'd hope any police force would have an intelligent enough selection process so that someone who does excel in initial tests, such as our plaintiff here, would be put through to something more suitable, such as detective training or forensics or whatever.

[Ominous Gamer]

Anyways. You'd hope any police force would have an intelligent enough selection process so that someone who does excel in initial tests, such as our plaintiff here, would be put through to something more suitable, such as detective training or forensics or whatever.

A lot of police departments are to small to pull off something like this. This city for example is < 30,000 (currently, god knows how small it was more than a decade ago) people. Less than a tenth of my city. What you're looking for likely is going to require becoming a state trooper or county sheriff.

[Aimless]

http://www.aele.org/apa/jordan-newlondon.html

Maybe they secretly also didn't wanna hire a 46-y-o but mostly it reflects a tenet of HR faith not necessarily restricted to the police force.

http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2010/08/...ed-not-really/

[Enoch the Red]

A lot of police departments are to small to pull off something like this. This city for example is < 30,000 (currently, god knows how small it was more than a decade ago) people. Less than a tenth of my city. What you're looking for likely is going to require becoming a state trooper or county sheriff.

Eh, that's not necessarily true. Even very small cities/counties usually will have an officer that can be called on to do detective/forensics work, even if there isn't the demand to do it full time. Now, turn over in smaller departments is usually pretty low, and seniority is often taken into account when determining who gets these positions when the opportunity does arise, but it's definitely not unheard of.

[Ominous Gamer]

turn over in smaller departments is usually pretty low, and the seniority is often taken into account when determining who gets these positions when the opportunity does arise,

This is what I was getting at. A department that counts turnover in terms of training costs likely isn't going to have the funds to fast track an exceptional applicant into a position that isn't expected to open up for years at best. Dectective work largely isn't NCIS or Monk style mindblowing. A lot of it can be solved by being around the same area long enough to recognize patterns and having a relationship with the community. Its why promotions in the department are common. If the department believes they have a valid reason for not believing that smart people will stick around, then thats that. Its not so much a dig at the department, but how policing in general works in the US.

but it's definitely not unheard of.

not unheard of, but unlikely for sure. which is why none of my post suggested my reply was absolute.

[Enoch the Red]

This is what I was getting at. A department that counts turnover in terms of training costs likely isn't going to have the funds to fast track an exceptional applicant into a position that isn't expected to open up for years at best. Dectective work largely isn't NCIS or Monk style mindblowing. A lot of it can be solved by being around the same area long enough to recognize patterns and having a relationship with the community. Its why promotions in the department are common. If the department believes they have a valid reason for not believing that smart people will stick around, then thats that. Its not so much a dig at the department, but how policing in general works in the US.

not unheard of, but unlikely for sure. which is why none of my post suggested my reply was absolute.

I was under the impression you were saying it is uncommon for small police forces to have detectives and/or police officers with forensic training. That certainly hasn't been my experience. However, it sounds like that was not what you were getting at, so please feel free to disregard my post.

[GGT]

http://www.aele.org/apa/jordan-newlondon.html

Maybe they secretly also didn't wanna hire a 46-y-o but mostly it reflects a tenet of HR faith not necessarily restricted to the police force.

http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2010/08/...ed-not-really/

I didn't notice -- were younger applicants with high scores also rejected?

The ruling sounds strange if it just had to be "rational, not necessarily right" when it comes to turnover. That's the kind of "rationale" used in the past that kept women off police forces.

[LittleFuzzy]

I didn't notice -- were younger applicants with high scores also rejected?

The ruling sounds strange if it just had to be "rational, not necessarily right" when it comes to turnover. That's the kind of "rationale" used in the past that kept women off police forces.

Federal court, bound by US constitutional jurisprudence. Courts are not and should not be in the business of trying to overturn something just because a judge thinks it is unwise. That's the core for the rational basis test. If there is a rational basis for their action, the courts should leave actually deciding the best way to implement that course of action to the policy-makers rather than trying to take it upon themselves and so should uphold the government's action. As an exception, there are special categories where, on the basis of modern knowledge or historically frequent acts without adequate basis, the courts require a heightened standard, strict scrutiny, to examine the policy-makers' intentions. Discrimination on the basis of sex/gender is one of those categories.

[GGT]

Isn't age another "special category"?

[GGT]

And who would make the detectives of tomorrow if not the beat cops of today? You can be promoted from one to the other so no reason to prevent an intelligent individual from working.

Someone doesn't have to come up through the ranks, or be a "street cop" first, in order to be a good Detective. IMO, that's a flaw in process that's easily fixed.

[LittleFuzzy]

Isn't age another "special category"?

I don't think so, not for the Feds anyway. I believe some states have it in their local jurisprudence though. IIRC, established categories at the federal level are race, national origin, sex/gender, religion, and citizenship status. Various other groups/characteristics, including age, may meet the some or all of the general guidelines for when strict scrutiny should be utilized but are either not formally recognized yet, or would not always require the higher burden for justification. I think age actually runs afoul of one of the guidelines in that any particular rule or law regarding an age is going to apply to everyone at some point in their lives and hence it doesn't represent an inherent characteristic. Age is not immutable. Anyway, age was never a part of the case here, Minx just suggested it might a secret desire/intention harbored by the city.

[GGT]

Age was a definite category, even if the courts didn't recognize it at such.

[Dreadnaught]

I heard about this a while ago, when considering trashing my career to date to become a cop. Was told they wouldn't want Zio-conspirators in their ranks. It doesn't seem rational, but then again maybe it's strange that none of us blinks an eye with an aptitude "floor" for jobs but can't wrap our heads around an aptitude "ceiling".

[Hazir]

I see seriously nothing wrong with the policy. It's also hardly the first time in history somebody didn't get a job because he was over qualified.

[RandBlade]

Perhaps. And while the logic of this exclusive recruitment process might make sense, primarily in the context of high-turnover, it is still discrimination.

One thing that irritates me is people using the term discrimination in a way it doesn't belong. Yes its discrimination but its not "still discrimination" in an "all discrimination is bad" way. Discrimination on certain grounds (ie gender etc) is typically illegal. In the UK there are IIRC 10 grounds upon which it is illegal to discriminate, some of which are surprising.

However the very purpose of the recruitment process is to find ways to properly discriminate between candidates to recruit the best candidate for the job.

At least under UK laws and I suspect its the same in the USA so long as you don't violate what are basically protected categories that you can't discriminate against, then whatever criteria you chose are legal.

EG to state two potentially controversial but legal in the UK methods, I could ask every job candidate if they smoke and only hire non-smokers. Smokers are not a protected group. You can also (and many companies do) discriminate against anyone with tattoos, especially visible tattoos are commonly forbidden (the BBC News website regularly has articles with people whining that they should be made a protected group). One which is harder to discriminate against is beards, because certain religions/cultures have beards and you can't discriminate based on religion here.

[EDIT: Just read LittleFuzzy's post which said pretty much the same thing. I'm not sure if we have a rational basis test in the UK, I don't think we do. I'm curious if you'd agree Fuzzy in that hiring only non-smokers or people without visible tattoos would be legal in the USA, I'd think it is (can certainly make a rational basis comparison for both I think).]

I see seriously nothing wrong with the policy. It's also hardly the first time in history somebody didn't get a job because he was over qualified.

I don't agree. I don't see anything illegal with the policy but I certainly think its a stupid policy. IQ is not a qualification in the same way as you might not want to hire a trained barrister because they're only looking for something temporary before finding a role they've trained for. Furthermore I think it offensively belittles all your colleagues to say "we only hire people who aren't too bright", not sure its done the Police Force any favours.

[LittleFuzzy]

[EDIT: Just read LittleFuzzy's post which said pretty much the same thing. I'm not sure if we have a rational basis test in the UK, I don't think we do. I'm curious if you'd agree Fuzzy in that hiring only non-smokers or people without visible tattoos would be legal in the USA, I'd think it is (can certainly make a rational basis comparison for both I think).]

Well, the discrimination does have to have a purpose Rand. Discrimination on the basis of visible tatoos might certainly have a rational basis for someone who is dealing with the public or otherwise serving as a face of the employer in some fashion but would not appear to have much basis when hiring for a construction crew or a, heh, tatoo parlor. "I just don't like tatoos and don't want to hire someone with 'em" would leave an employer open to a civil suit (though it would be far more likely to happen if it was the basis for termination rather than not hiring. Getting any solid basis for not hiring is and always will be fairly difficult for a prospective plaintiff)

[GGT]

Tattoos and smoking are behavioral choices, though. US employers can require tattoos be covered with clothing or makeup, same thing for piercings and jewelry. They don't have to give workers "smoke breaks" or provide a smoking shelter for breaks, either. There are alternatives to simply not hiring someone (discriminating) based on personal choices, that still fall within a legal and civil rights framework.

It got trickier with our employer-subsidized Health Insurance system....which gave employers a lot of leeway to "dictate" personal behaviors, even outside the workplace, since an insurance actuarial could say all sorts of employee behaviors added to overall "operating costs" via higher health insurance premiums. That kind of hiring practice can quickly turn into a messy, slippery slope where any employee benefits can be seen as negative.