Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops:

[TxGoat]

The department doesn't seem to be saying that those with high IQ scores are "too smart to be a police officer." They seem to be saying that they've seen loss of revenue due to a discovered link between higher IQ scores and trained personnel loss.

In a way they also seem to be admitting that they don't know how to deal with that the ways some companies do: by shunting over qualified employees to more sophisticated sections of the company so they'll be challenged enough to stay on force. Instead they're just shutting the door on them at the point of entry.

I can see why many departments wanted to keep this in the dark. Do you really want your citizens knowing that you actively seek out applicants that score "average" or "slightly below average" on IQ testing because you see a correlation between high turnover and high IQ?

I actually live near a city that doesn't hire any officer unless they have a Bachelors degree, and while they pay them a little more ($35,000 a year last I heard) than the larger cities, you rarely hear about any of their officers involved in questionable shootings, or illegal activities. If I recall, the 2 times I was stopped by one of their officers in the span of about 10 years (I swear it's not a common occurrence!!), it always seemed very professional.

but i do agree it is discrimination
if they said no because of something i have done over time or even certain veiws i have then fine but saying no because of something i was born with that does NOT hinder my ability to perform the task i think is discrimination

What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if an applicant was complaining because he scored low on an IQ test and was passed over? Would you consider that discrimination? And then what if a 500 lb applicant was turned down because he/she couldn't physically perform, would that also be considered discrimination? As much as I hate the fact that the goal is not to hire the best and the brightest, the object of every hiring manager is to be discriminating when trying to find the best applicant for the position. And lets not forget what the term actually means:
dis

 

[OstrichSaK]

What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if an applicant was complaining because he scored low on an IQ test and was passed over? Would you consider that discrimination? And then what if a 500 lb applicant was turned down because he/she couldn't physically perform, would that also be considered discrimination? As much as I hate the fact that the goal is not to hire the best and the brightest, the object of every hiring manager is to be discriminating when trying to find the best applicant for the position. And lets not forget what the term actually means:
dis

 

[TxGoat]

Each of those reasons you listed is a NEGATIVE reason that might also not allow them to perform the required tasks. That would mean they don't qualify for the position and is the very reason for the fact gathering. Just like being white or black doesn't chance one's ability to perform the task at hand so long as they meet all the other requirements. Saying someone is 'too smart' is like saying 'well, you are Olympic athlete so you're too in shape to be a police officer' or 'you competed at the national level at firearms competition so you're too proficient to be a police officer' and neither of those make sense. Not hiring someone specifically because they are TOO good at a certain task is indeed discrimination.

So an obese person should not be discriminated against based on your post below?

In real life, most cops don't do much running.

So what you're saying is that if I went to McDonalds, applied as a burger flipper or Walmart and applied as a sacker, neither of those companies could turn me down because of my experience as a trainer, an engineer, nor my science degree? I know if I was interviewing a candidate with similar experience to man my fryer, or sack groceries, I'd politely turn that candidate down.

If a company has identified a turnover trend that can be tested prior to offering employment then I don't see how someone can claim discrimination
(illegal discrimination since as I stated, an employer has to discriminate between a good candidate and a bad candidate). If you were a business owner and could spot a trend in turnover, would you want to invest money in training someone that you had a good idea would be gone in 3, 6, 9 months?

 

[OstrichSaK]

So an obese person should not be discriminated against based on your post below?

That's not what I said. Just because most cops don't run doesn't mean there aren't minimum qualifications. My mother was a letter carrier for the USPS and one of the minimum qualifications was that she be able to lift 70lbs. You know how many times she actually lifted a 70lb package in all her years delivering? None. Zero. Zip. Does that mean she shouldn't have to demonstrate the ability to meet these minimum qualifications? Nope. What if some day she had to lift a package that was 70bs? Just like LEOs have to meet minimum qualifications in case the day comes they need to do something.

That's a pretty big difference from what you're trying to turn it into.

So what you're saying is that if I went to McDonalds, applied as a burger flipper or Walmart and applied as a sacker, neither of those companies could turn me down because of my experience as a trainer, an engineer, nor my science degree? I know if I was interviewing a candidate with similar experience to man my fryer, or sack groceries, I'd politely turn that candidate down.

If a company has identified a turnover trend that can be tested prior to offering employment then I don't see how someone can claim discrimination
(illegal discrimination since as I stated, an employer has to discriminate between a good candidate and a bad candidate). If you were a business owner and could spot a trend in turnover, would you want to invest money in training someone that you had a good idea would be gone in 3, 6, 9 months?

To get right down to the definition of intelligent people aren't a protected class so by definition I guess it's not something we can call discrimination... legally. But by the spirit of this thread I would say that telling someone they're too smart to perform a task where innocent lives are dependent on that individual is just wrong. Don't you want the BEST candidate for the position described? Don't you want the most fit, smartest, strongest, bravest and all around best people for that position available? Let's face facts, not too many 'smart' people will put their lives on the line dealing with the scum of the earth for $40k a year so if someone smart wants to and meets all the criteria I think it's pure BS to deny them because they're too smart.

 

[copestag]

so if a company identified a trend that blacks or women dont last very long in a specific position and had a high turnover rate among blacks and women....... then they would be just fine if they refused to hire otherwise qualified canditates based on the color of their skin or sex simply because they may not trend well?

 

[OstrichSaK]

so if a company identified a trend that blacks or women dont last very long in a specific position and had a high turnover rate among blacks and women....... then they would be just fine if they refused to hire otherwise qualified canditates based on the color of their skin or sex simply because they may not trend well?

Great point. I happen to know that new hires in law enforcement locally (city, county & state levels) that are female do NOT last as long as their male counterparts. So, if it's fair to not hire intelligent people based on fiscal reasons wouldn't it also make sense to be able to discriminate against female applicants for this same reason?