Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Government Your Rights Online

Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores 260

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • Seriously... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16, 2011 @05:48PM (#35843146)

    Published: September 09, 1999

  • Holy Old Story! (Score:5, Informative)

    by damn_registrars ( 1103043 ) <> on Saturday April 16, 2011 @05:49PM (#35843158) Homepage Journal
    Anyone pay attention to the first line?

    Published: September 09, 1999

    This happened almost twelve years ago...

  • News from 1999 (Score:1, Informative)

    by rihkama ( 732472 ) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @05:50PM (#35843170)
    "Published: September 09, 1999" This is pretty much oldest news I have seen here.
  • Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Informative)

    by grayshirtninja ( 1242690 ) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @05:50PM (#35843172)

    Slashdot is usually slow, but this is just ridiculous.

  • Re:Holy Old Story! (Score:5, Informative)

    by El_Muerte_TDS ( 592157 ) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @05:54PM (#35843216) Homepage

    This is just in: Napoleon died.

  • Re:Holy Old Story! (Score:4, Informative)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Saturday April 16, 2011 @06:14PM (#35843412) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by asackett ( 161377 ) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @07:12PM (#35843748) Homepage

    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.

  • Re:Not unexpected... (Score:5, Informative)

    by arkenian ( 1560563 ) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @07:54PM (#35843940)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17, 2011 @12:53AM (#35845334)

    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:

    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.

In 1869 the waffle iron was invented for people who had wrinkled waffles.