digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Judge Rules That Police Can Bar People For Having High I.Q.s

query.nytimes.com — 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.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rrouse, on 06/11/2008, -8/+760They don't want police so smart they understand the corruption in the department.
    • monsterette, on 06/11/2008, -2/+56...he said it: "... the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.''
      • jp12380, on 06/12/2008, -24/+3Right and not only should they be allowed to discriminate against high IQs it's not right for them to discriminate against low ones either.
        • WoollyMittens, on 06/12/2008, -1/+43You can be too stupid, but you can't be too smart. That's like being too healthy.
        • jp12380, on 06/12/2008, -6/+2I don't think that is true, when they hire a police officer it costs them money and they don't want the police officer to get bored of his job and quit.
        • Rammy912, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3a stupid police officer would take any chance he got at firing off his taser at a bro.
          they don't want that ***** happening..... again. draws too much attention to what's going on behind closed doors.
      • hypercrypt, on 06/12/2008, -1/+59Isn't it like saying that not allowing women or non-whites at work isn't discrimination as long as you do not make any exception?

        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. -> 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 is black/a woman/other discrimination was rejected.

        That judge needs to be removed quickly!
        • hmphargh, on 06/12/2008, -8/+6This does not apply because intelligence is not a suspect class. It fails 3 of the 4 criteria: Intelligent people do not face a history of discrimination, they are not politically impotent, and they are not really an insular and discrete minority.
        • bpoteat, on 06/12/2008, -0/+18"Intelligent people do not face a history of discrimination, they are not politically impotent, and they are not really an insular and discrete minority."
          The sad thing is, this may or may not be viewed as sarcastic.
        • wbgo, on 06/12/2008, -1/+14@hmphargh: what a stupid set of criteria. You're basically saying that it's fine to discriminate against people who haven't been discriminated against before.
        • StormyAaron, on 06/12/2008, -0/+14Hmphargh, close to any fascist state goes after the intellectuals, and smart people (along with artists and poets) as they tend to be the first to voice opposition historically, Thus they have a history of discrimination, thus they are political impotent to a free and democratic society, not just to invent, question, and solve our problems, but also to raise opposition when no one else will.
        • kayala, on 06/12/2008, -0/+15Um, aren't women technically a majority?
        • duromano, on 06/12/2008, -1/+0test
    • Eunonia, on 06/12/2008, -2/+21So true and so sad at the same time.
    • Reaper2806, on 06/12/2008, -3/+149It's not discrimination because all people who score high are rejected???

      Oh well in that case in my company, the guy didn't get the job because he's black, but it's not discrimination, because no blacks guys get it.

      What? A federal judge, doesn't know the definition of the word discrimination? Where do you start...
      • toonworld, on 06/12/2008, -0/+94apparently candidates who score too high on IQ tests are also rejected for Judge positions
      • stilesja, on 06/12/2008, -0/+15Hey man, all the black people have to drink from this water fountain. Its not discrimination.
      • abaird986, on 06/12/2008, -11/+4Yeah man... I applied to be a rocket scientist once and they wouldn't hire me because I scored too low on an IQ test, total discrimination!

        Discrimination laws apply to attributes that have no bearing on job performance (age, race, gender, etc). I would say that intelligence (in most cases) has an impact on job performance. Comparing this to sexism and racism as completely asinine and the judge made the correct ruling.

        Maybe cops with high IQs over think things, maybe they're quick to make assumptions, maybe they're not as cautious in the field, who knows. If this department thinks that people with IQs that are too high perform worse as a cop who the hell are you to complain about their hiring practices?
        • vtron, on 06/12/2008, -0/+17We're the public that pays their salary and have to deal with the dumb cops that taze people to death. I'm pretty sure we have every right to complain about their hiring practices.
        • Blg7, on 06/15/2008, -0/+0lol.
    • yogurtslinger, on 06/12/2008, -20/+11The European Union has been a test ground to condition the public into thinking that safety is more valuable than liberty.

      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
      -Benjamin Franklin

      Coming soon..... Your safety guaranteed in the U.S.
      • igyigyigy, on 06/12/2008, -1/+25Remind me why a story about New London is relevant to the EU?
        • adnams, on 06/12/2008, -0/+7I think he is applying for the job by proving his IQ is not too high!
      • dwninjungleland, on 06/12/2008, -0/+12FAIL
      • paradexes, on 06/12/2008, -0/+15Because he missed the fact that this was in Connecticut NEW ENGLAND (New London being a town/city there) region of the UNITED STATES!!
    • feliks2, on 06/12/2008, -16/+2I don't want them smart because that would be scary and annoying as *****. Except detectives that actually solve real crimes of course.
    • 0ceanic, on 06/12/2008, -0/+59Published: September 9, 1999

      any updates?
      • tidu, on 06/12/2008, -2/+179/9/1999?

        Sorry, I notice these things
        • Revenuer, on 06/12/2008, -0/+31which is why you can't be a cop in New London :D
        • bigmrjohn, on 06/12/2008, -0/+30The day the Dreamcast was released! :)
      • jmkiii, on 06/12/2008, -0/+4Standards have since been lowered.
    • paradexes, on 06/12/2008, -1/+26The Government does not want thugs to be smart. Thugs are not known for being smart. They are just good at following orders, intimidating, beating people and sodomizing them with a plunger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima)

      This is what a lack of intelligence will get you in your local "friendly" Police force.
    • flashback99, on 06/12/2008, -3/+21The news is clear folks, they want a retarded police force.
    • SpyDerMann, on 06/12/2008, -0/+23...and this is why Sherlock Holmes always beat the idiots at Scotland Yard.
    • kosser, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3When the police are carrying out things the like that Nazi officers did, they just want them to be dumbed down enough to not know and follow orders.
    • SAc0balt, on 06/12/2008, -0/+0Id say they're more concerned that when the time comes for the police to start serving the federal government's needs, they won't question the orders they might get to trample our constitutional rights.
    • xptoast, on 06/12/2008, -0/+5Phhtt. If he was smart enough he would have played dumb on the test.
  • monsterette, on 06/11/2008, -10/+148Whaaa?!?
    • thejacknut, on 06/12/2008, -8/+2For the cheap seats: Whaaaa!?
    • stilesja, on 06/12/2008, -2/+7I think what the judges ruling really means is that if he was so smart, he wouldn't WANT to be a policeman so he must have cheated on the test.
    • 4d669, on 06/12/2008, -2/+2Stalin used to do this as well, this has been public and status quo for decades. We have the Freedom of Information Act for a reason, read the official government documents of your country or shut the ***** up and don't complain.
    • tyboulder, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2So unless we're fully briefed on every document available under the FIA, we're not allowed to post a comment or question on Digg? Apparently this being the "status quo" for decades is pretty interesting. Where do all the "intelligent" senior officers in law enforcement come from? Recruiting agencies?
    • Biohazard6601, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2stop digging up these stupid posts at the top of the board
    • robbiemuffin, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1lol how did "whaa?" get 130 diggs?
  • sneakeykop, on 06/11/2008, -5/+152

    They do this in New York City as well...
    • bxblox, on 06/12/2008, -1/+21Seriously? Why?? (not that I should be surprised)
      • bjornski, on 06/12/2008, -1/+44So the dumb ones don't feel so bad.

        Besides, dumb ones don't question orders.
      • Pittance, on 06/12/2008, -2/+2In case they somehow got the answers from someone maybe. I cant think of any other reason why they would do this.
      • rmxz, on 06/12/2008, -1/+2Most likely their excuse is that it's harder to retain the high-IQ employees and it's kinda costly to train a new cop.
        • BrewBeau, on 06/12/2008, -1/+4Hmmm... it doesn't seem like becoming a cop is the standard stepping stone job to something higher paying or a more cerebral job. You'd think they would do things like the military where they get you to sign a 4 year contract and they put your high IQ to use.
      • Shagmire, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Plain and simple. Stupid people have to work somewhere.
      • tyboulder, on 06/12/2008, -2/+2My gut instinct tells me that this is 90% *****.
    • tyywebb, on 06/12/2008, -1/+17"You scored 1400 on your SAT's, you're an astronaut not a statey."
    • xptoast, on 06/12/2008, -2/+10They do this everywhere for police forces. That is why you get tickets for retarded crap. Also if you are too good at keeping the peace they tell you to stop patrolling so much and let the crimes ensue so that more tickets and arrests can be made. That second part was told from a policeman.
    • desertDenizen, on 06/12/2008, -0/+6Feeling a bit of smuggery here... I brought up this issue of barring high-IQ police candidates a few months back on digg, sometime around Don't Tase Me Bro (or similar), and got dugg down for not... citing a reference? Please. That's like not citing a reference when you say fast food is bad for you. Surprise, fair citizens: Cops aren't all the brightest of the bunch. BY DESIGN.
    • ZenMojo, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3Why are people surprised? We discriminate against presidential candidates for being too smart.
  • sweeneypng, on 06/12/2008, -5/+286Ok, so it's not discrimination if it applies to an entire group of people? So it wasn't discrimination when all women couldn't vote, or when all African Americans had to sit at the back of the bus? It's only discrimination once somebody out there catches a break, apparently. But seriously, though. Why would a smart guy want to hang out with cops all day, anyway?
    • Eunonia, on 06/12/2008, -21/+3Not the point here. It's his business. Imagine you being smarter than the manager who is interviewing you. Would you be hired, no because that manager would lose his job if the bosses found out that you for example can save them even more money, or offer them better deals with other companies because you know how to talk to people than others and can negotiate large deals.
      • tonicboy, on 06/12/2008, -0/+16This is not a case of a person in a hiring position trying to maintain job security. It's a department policy.
      • Abomonog, on 06/12/2008, -1/+13You got it wrong yourself. The reason people with high IQs get passed over is that they tend to ask questions instead of blindly following orders. The lower the IQ the easier it is to convince them to toss morality out of the way without question when ordered to.

        People with lower IQs are more likely to react violently to any questionable situation. A trait that is in demand in police forces.

        It is no coincidence that most cops who get fired end up career criminals. The personality profile that is sought out means that many cops are only suited to be a cop.
        • OigoMiEggo, on 06/12/2008, -10/+0To view this in a bit more positive light. If what Abomonog says is true that those with lower IQs react more violently to any questionable situation, then wouldn't that be a somewhat valuable attribute to have in policing? Imagine if there is a suspicious situation where the cop can be harmed. If a person with a lower IQ is stereotypically (hopefully statistically to make it more credible) more likely to react faster than a person with a higher IQ, wouldn't it be better to hire the person with the lower IQ?

          Yes, this is discrimination, but is it made for benevolent reasons? To protect the applicants who may be ill-suited to handle situations that require faster reactions? Even if the stereotype is false, why would they want to risk all the resources training an applicant that does not perform as well as another applicant who could have been a more suitable choice? Why even risk the possibility of being wrong by sending out an ill-suited cop to his possible death when another could have had a better chance of surviving policing?
    • LenBaird, on 06/12/2008, -0/+33"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."
      Let's change this around some and see if it flies:
      EDITED TO MAKE MY POINT
      "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 was black was rejected."
      Total *****. They want dumb police because they will follow unlawful orders without questioning them.
    • sodade, on 06/12/2008, -0/+24This is the exact ***** opposite of what we need the police force to be. Get rid of most drug laws, fire at least 50% of the existing force and start recruiting smart boyscout types. Monitor them every second they are on duty and let them focus on being real heroes like firemen.
    • masgaster, on 06/12/2008, -12/+10Race is a suspect class. Intelligence is not. As long as there is a possible rational explanation the practice is legal. What, are we going to be suing every employer that wants to know where you went to school, what your GPA or class rank was, what degrees you have? Because if you treat this like a racial issue these questions have to go. Period. If you have a problem with being in the more highly educated class drink more and watch fox news. Done.
      • RevEng, on 06/12/2008, -2/+6Except they didn't give a rational explanation. And what could be considered rational? I fail to see how you can be "too smart" for anything. If he wants to do the job, and he is able to do the job, and he would do well at the job, then what's the problem? Show me one solid explanation for how being smart would make you a poor police officer.
        • ShugNinx21, on 06/12/2008, -3/+1Well... It's a well know fact that Police officers have to have low IQs as well as an inferiority complex so that they can properly abuse the power given to them so that they may harass citizens and make themselves feel better about what ***** losers they have been their entire lives.
        • yournightmare, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2The judge didn't need to give a rational explanation and neither did the police department, because this is well-established legal doctrine in our country. Why don't you people digging masgaster down try looking up terms like "suspect class" and "rational basis test" to understand what he's talking about. If you don't like the legal aspects of this situation blame SCOTUS, not the judge in this particular case.
      • hierophantus, on 06/12/2008, -1/+2Apparently, you're being dugg down for being right.

        I'm not even going to read the rest of the comments now that I know having actual legal knowledge will only render the rampant uninformed outrage annoying to me.
      • TheOther1, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1OK then:
        "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 is attracted to the same sex was rejected."
        Do you really think that would fly any better? It's ***** either way.
        • masgaster, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Good point, and the Court has been slowly moving towards making sexual orientation a quasi-suspect class for just that reason. That doesn't change the fact that intelligence is still not a protected class though. And it shouldn't be. Making something a suspect class is a two way street and I don't want idiots working at NASA.
          By the way, thanks for the props hiero.
    • jhshukla, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1why you ask? may be:
      - he wants help stop crime/antisocial activities.
      - he just wants to know what goes on inside the dept
      - he wants to know how cases are solved
      - he wants to gain some experience here so that he could use it elsewhere
      some silly ones now,
      - he is playing "truth and dare" or whatever it's called
      - he just wants to mess with minds of low-ranking cops
      and possibly hundreds of more reasons.
    • orlyfactor, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1He's also a douchebag.
    • Twan2649, on 06/12/2008, -0/+6Personally, I wanted to sit at the back of the bus.
    • opticwind, on 06/12/2008, -5/+4No, you miss the point. It's not discrimination because intelligent people are not considered a group or race. They could be anyone. Women, men, black, white, whatever. Everyone is rejected if they score too high. It's stupid, not discrimination.
      • Anigma, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3Just because it isn't racial discrimination dosen't make it not discrimination.
      • ZenMojo, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Anyone could be a Muslim. What's your point?
      • LenBaird, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1It is discrimination, but it is allowed, because "smart" is not a legally protected class of people.
        You can be discriminated against for being a white male too, and just because the law won't recognize it doesn't mean it isn't what it is.
    • Tyking, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Yes, it's wrong, but it's not discrimination. If it was, than it would also be discrimination to reject someone who scored to low. If this is discrimination against smart people, than that is discrimination against dumb people.
      • Kypt, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1The difference is that people that are too dumb may be too dumb to follow instructions or uneducated enough to do a good job. While being too smart...mmm?

        I heard somewhere that they usually don't take too smart people to prevent turnover (they get bored). Smart people tend to not last long and they want people they can count on.
      • LenBaird, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Rejecting a dumb person, a case could be made that they don't possess the attributes to perform the job. No such case can be made for smart people.
        Maybe they should eliminate intelligence tests, and make them give specific reasons that the person may not be able to perform the job. For example, make them take a test with hypothetical situations, and then see if they can make the correct decision in difficult situations. This would test intelligence as it relates to doing the job. There may be dumb people with good instincts, and smart people with no common sense, which an IQ test does not show.
    • scimitar91, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1yeah WTF
      "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."

      With that logic, is it okay as long as anyone who is black is rejected?
  • runderwo, on 06/12/2008, -2/+54Kelo v. New London was a sign that the IQ of the New London government was on its way south. This is just confirmation of that suspicion.
  • DrShotgun, on 06/12/2008, -5/+298A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he was black.

    In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of skin color. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.

    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 was black was rejected.

    Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor's degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ''I was eliminated on the basis of my race,'' he said. ''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or intellectual makeup.''
    • toropee, on 06/12/2008, -1/+26You said it. Puts it in an even clearer perspective.
    • matrixbandit, on 06/12/2008, -23/+17I disagree completely. I agree that IN THIS CASE the victim here is the man who has been denied a job opportunity based on his above average intellect. But what if we were talking about the opposite? What if the man had an exceptionally LOW I.Q. instead? If intelligence was protected against discrimination then they would be forced to hire him even if his IQ was 50. If that were the case, then the public at large would be the victim in the story. Read this excerpt from the article with that in mind and tell me how you feel about it now:

      ''I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,'' he said. ''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.''

      If laws prevented discrimination based on intelligence, I have a feeling police forces would be worse off than they are currently. I do think the idea of putting an UPPER cap on IQ is a stupid idea but I think they have a right to do it if they think it best. In the end the department heads will be liable for the results of their decisions and held accountable. If they aren't smart enough to figure out that smarter cops make smarter decisions then they won't hold their jobs for very long and will be eventually replaced by people who will.
      • aceslick911, on 06/12/2008, -0/+31um.. ok but why put a CAP on intelligence? Is there something wrong about an intelligent officer?

        that's pretty much the only reason for outrage here... Why our society insists on not hiring someone who might actually improve it..
      • utinam, on 06/12/2008, -0/+16...what?

        No one suffers from someone of above-average intelligence being a police officer. Or black. Or gay. But people could probably wind up getting hurt (or being neglected) orif someone of significantly below-average intelligence/mentally handicapped was hired for that kind of position.
      • AdmiralHalsey, on 06/12/2008, -2/+1first, youre an idiot. second, your safety net isnt actually there. accountability? america's civic leaders do not know this beast. not in 1999 and definitely not in 2008. the incompetent police officers will be replaced by their incompetent children, who will continue to ram nonsensical policy down public throats. hi, im Cynical. nice to meet you
        • thirteenthcor, on 06/12/2008, -2/+1If they hire a stupid, low IQ guy (which stupidity does not necessarily insinuate low IQ) then eventually he would ***** up on the job anyways, and get fired.

          It all evens itself out

          This is Discrimination.
        • AdmiralHalsey, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1if he can perform the duties and functions of the job, thats all that should matter.
      • stilesja, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3So to put this in perspective you think its ok to say someone is too dumb or too smart to have a job? So they give you a test that you have to pass, but don't ACE it, just don't fail it. B- is the perfect score? Maybe we should do this with race to? White people - OK. Albino's - No way. To much Sun Tan? - Gonna have to pass. Black people OK. Too black? Not black enough? Gay people, we'll take them but only those that limit to oral. No anal play. Where does it stop?

        Obviously the test they give is designed to weed out smart people too, otherwise it would be a test that determines just if you are smart enough to do the job, not if you are "too smart".
        • wrs123, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1"I do think the idea of putting an UPPER cap on IQ is a stupid idea"
          No, he didn't say he thought that was ok. Read.
      • somedirtbag, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1If the man had an exceptionally low I.Q., chances are the notion of filing lawsuit wouldn't have even crossed his simple mind.
      • RandomNetUser, on 06/12/2008, -0/+4The flaw in your logic is that if someone is of lower intelligence, chances are, they won't be able to perform the functions of said job to the degree which is required, therefore removing them from being a candidate. However, if someone of below average intelligence is still able to perform all the duties and requirements of the job without any major fall backs, then I say they deserve the job... Possibly even more so than some of the guys in the same line of work that only abuse their power.
    • passedoutghost, on 06/12/2008, -16/+2Ctrl + A, Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V, Get dugg up.
      • kpsfire, on 06/12/2008, -0/+9If you had bothered to read it, you would have realized that DrShotgun was putting this story in perspective by replacing "intelligence" and all words pertaining to that concept with "black" and its synonyms.

        Good day.
        • ericcire, on 06/12/2008, -1/+5Click Reply, Type "Ctrl + A, Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V, Get dugg up.", Look like a *****.

          Good job, chucklenuts

          /been looking for an excuse to use 'chucklenuts'
    • MikeFallopian, on 06/12/2008, -3/+8I see what you did there.
  • cersad, on 06/12/2008, -6/+144So this tells me:
    1) Police officers are just dumber than I
    2) So is the judge
    Intellectual ability is as much a product of our genes as the frame of our body or the color of our skin, hair, and eyes... it just isn't plainly visible on first glance. This case is both discriminatory and pathetic.

    Don't even get me started on the problems behind IQ tests, either... they're based on a history of tests that were passed off as being the final word in intelligence in spite of the fact that early developers of the test specifically warned that IQ tests were only approximations and prone to error. Granted, they may have improved over the years but they are still culturally biased towards what a certain sub-group of our society defines as evidence of intelligence--and then these problems are swept under the rug when the test results are fitted to a normal curve. Absolute failure.
    • Myztry, on 06/12/2008, -7/+17Relax. You haven't got a low IQ. The tests are faulty :)
    • phauna, on 06/12/2008, -8/+3You can say that, however I'm pretty sure scientists have high IQs, police officers, not so much. Oh, and people who always make these comments also don't test too well.
      • graeh, on 06/12/2008, -0/+4It's easy to make the assumption "they're criticising it because they're not good at it" as the motivation - however it does little but chill the potential for discussion.

        It does seem to be the equivalent of saying "if you discuss this you're not cool - and you want to be cool, don't you?”

        IQ tests, measuring intelligence, even defining intelligence are fields of research new to human kind in the long term view of things - criticism, refinement, and discarding aspects of them is to be expected; to be encouraged.

        Or more bluntly - don't be a douchebag dude - discussing the problematic issues with IQ tests and measuring intelligence is a full time pursuit of many seemingly incredibly intelligent folk.
    • dulymachine, on 06/12/2008, -9/+3This story sounds as dubious as you do. What basis should I have that you CAN score as high or higher on these IQ tests than anyone on the force or the judge? Or if you could provide a test to judge intelligence quantitatively, why should I believe you'd be smarter than either of those groups? In short ***** your judgments and ***** your analysis.
    • toastjam, on 06/12/2008, -6/+1Not saying I think he should be kept off the force because of it, but it's not the same--your intelligence (however flawed the measuring of it is) will have a direct effect on your ability to do your job. Your skin color won't.
      • feliks2, on 06/12/2008, -2/+3If you can make an argument for intelligence in this situation, you can also make one for skin color in this situation. They are both equally stupid, despite having maybe a tiny tiny bit of sense in them.
      • BrewBeau, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1You'd have a point if he was judged to have an IQ that was too low. Or if life was like a RPG where if you put too many points into intelligence, you won't have any for strength and stamina.
    • trixterIreland, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1well the original IQ tests were to place kids into school where many hadnt attended prior. I believe this originally occured in France as well, but was carried over, then their intent was modified to apply to a range of things.

      The tests originally never were designed for non school age people, and while I havent been forced to take one for 23 years, I doubt much has changed in that time, and generally they arent reliable after about age 16-18. I do know during that time the standard deviation has changed as have other things (it was 10 points per deviation when I took it, the normal ones now I think are 16 points).
      • tullyr, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2So, what, 95% of the adolescent population should be between IQs of 68 and 132?
        • dafunkmonster, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2yea, I call *****. The standard deviation is smaller than that.
    • MaximusD, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3If it's legal to deny somebody a job based on a low IQ, then it should be legal to deny someone a job because of high IQ. People are turned down for jobs all the time because they are overqualified -- when you hire somebody who could get a better job, they normally don't work for you for long. I still think the department should take this guy -- Lord knows that police departments could use an IQ boost. But the judge has to protect employers from being forced to hire overqualified candidates who, believe it or not, often end up as ***** workers because they are bored and feel they could do better.
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Whether it's discrimination or not, it is the same level of discrimination as barring people with IQs that are too low. I defintely do not want too see what the police force would like like if they had cops even stupider than the ones they have now, so I support discrimination based on intelligence in a general sense. Why they would want to ban people with high intelligence is kind of dumb though, but not any more discriminatory.

      The silver lining is that smart people usually win at the end anyways. Either this guy will just find a better job maybe even one in law enforcement. Or some smart people will figure out a way to get this retarded policy removed. Who knows maybe a smart person came up with this policy in the first place for some smart reason we don't yet know about.
  • rdeal1, on 06/12/2008, -5/+17maybe whoever's job it was to hire for the position was afraid that if he hired someone smarter than he or she, the new hire might end up taking their job, or just make he/she look bad
    • LenBaird, on 06/12/2008, -1/+9I hope this doesn't come off wrong, but here goes anyway...
      I have had a lot of work problems in the past because I am a fairly intelligent guy. I see nonsense, and bad decisions, lies, etc happen, and I actually notice, and I bring them up. They HATE this, and I spent years being harassed by a mental midget of a boss who tried to destroy my carreer and fire me. It wasn't entirely because I have a brain, but I feel that it definitely played a part.
      Dumb bosses, greedy companies, and companies intent on doing bad things want dumb employees who shut up and do what they are told. Good, honest, smart companies with nothing to hide can benefit greatly by having smart employees.
      • BradMW, on 06/12/2008, -4/+3So you screwed up your career early on by not playing along or finding a new job? You must be really smart then. Workplace intelligence involves knowing how to play the game as well.
        • chaoswings, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2The people who dugg you down obviously have never worked at a real job (part time at a fast food joint does not count). At the workplace you need to know how to deal with people and that includes idiots. The reason I exclude part time is because you can rub someone the wrong way and long term it doesn't matter because you'll only have the job a few months. But when your in a career and may work with the same people for years. Learning to adapt to people is very important.
  • Sludgehammer, on 06/12/2008, -2/+65Well, he's still can be eligible, he just needs to go huff paint for a few days. Problem solved.
    • bjornski, on 06/12/2008, -9/+4Exactly.

      It's NOT the same as not being hired because he was female or black.

      If you go get *****, you can have a low IQ. But if you get *****, you'd still be female or black.

      He just needs to go wipe out a few I.Q. points.

      Or get a job that doesn't suck.
      • AdamFromMyspace, on 06/12/2008, -4/+1Your IQ doesn't magically change when you're drunk, retard.
        • bjornski, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Depends on how much you drink.

          I've had my days where I can't remember where I put my glasses (on top of my head), much less function on any I.Q. tests.

          He just needs to retake the tests with a .25 BAC.
        • stilesja, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2You're ability to demonstrate that IQ does.
    • eastlondoner, on 06/12/2008, -3/+2GOD DAMN PAINT HUFFERS!
    • Whadabala, on 06/12/2008, -1/+8"he's still can be"? How's that paint workin' for ya?
    • wrs123, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2That is forward thinking right there
    • chaoswings, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Or he could have purposely tried to lower his IQ scores. It's difficult to get high marks but not so hard to go in the opposite direction.
    • kball75, on 06/12/2008, -0/+0Upmodded for "huffing paint" reference. "Huffing glue" would have been acceptable as well.

    • dlite922, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1ah...if it was only that easy to become smart as it is dumb.
  • davidhallstrom, on 06/12/2008, -18/+5It's called being over qualified.
    • GMMStraider, on 06/12/2008, -0/+17how the hell can you be overqualified as a police man? The smarter they are the faster criminals get behind bar (at least in theory....)
      • cipher121, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1"It's not policeman, it's police officer."

        "So why did you want to be a policemanofficer?"
    • phauna, on 06/12/2008, -0/+13Overqualified means qualified. It should be someone's choice if they want to do something easy with their career.
    • trixterIreland, on 06/12/2008, -0/+8Ahh but look at the standard used by the judge
      "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."

      If that same standard was applied to other things like race, gender, religion, etc it would be wrong. The judge should have come up with a different standard to decide whether or not its discrimination.

      Now as for being over qualified, the reason that is used is because employers are afraid that you will leave when you get something better. The guy is already in law enforcement, he just wants to change from being a baby sitter to actually solving crimes, something more mentally stimulating. It could be that they are afraid he will leave (or anyone else that tests too well) or it could be that he mouthed off to the wrong person at the wrong time, but being overqualified for a public service job is generally never considered anywhere, if anything they have a problem getting enough that are qualified in the first place.
    • Vodd9, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3You no sense make.
  • zoomsixx, on 06/12/2008, -15/+6I don't think this would be an issue here in the states judging by the current crop of cops.
    • trixterIreland, on 06/12/2008, -1/+11In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven

      New Haven as in Connecticut? US district court? I think it is "here in the states" unless you are using that term to refer to some collection of states other than the US.

      • zoomsixx, on 06/12/2008, -7/+2I actually didn't read it because I honestly don't a ***** about cops there or here. I read the New London police force, and assumed the article was about 'the new London police force".
    • paradexes, on 06/12/2008, -0/+6Yea there are a few brain surgeons on here confusing this with the EU. They obviously did not read the article for the part that starts METRO NEWS BRIEFS: CONNECTICUT; Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores
    • Bilabrin, on 06/12/2008, -1/+2NEW london
      • zoomsixx, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1Yes I see that now, thanks for wasting your time.
      • Bilabrin, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Oh no need to thank me, if I hadn't made that comment I just would've wasted it elsewhere...
    • Jonmad17, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1New London is in Connecticut. Which is a U.S. state. Which confirmed your theory that this would not be a problem in most states.
    • zoomsixx, on 06/12/2008, -2/+1Yes, I think that has been said already *****. You have proved my theory.
  • mopro, on 06/12/2008, -3/+82we must have had the same laws for electing certain presidents...
    • MarrowMan, on 06/12/2008, -2/+6You sure it was "low I.Q", and not ***** "Brain Dead"?
    • lovablevagabond, on 06/12/2008, -2/+4*cheers wildly*

      I wondered who would be the first to notice that. They should probably test for rabies as well, have you seen Bush around oil? Foaming like a faulty washing machine.
    • delmar14, on 06/12/2008, -1/+2Ya, like almost every one we've elected in our nation's history
    • CoMpUtErITGuY, on 06/12/2008, -1/+0Like Obama?
    • wrs123, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Hiyo! Zing!
  • chrissku, on 06/12/2008, -2/+120So we want our cops to be idiots?
    • mattsx, on 06/12/2008, -4/+30aren't they already?
    • Bith8654, on 06/12/2008, -2/+23It's tradition!
    • Gizza, on 06/12/2008, -0/+12Not at all. You want the idiots to be your cops.
    • LenBaird, on 06/12/2008, -0/+16Idiots shut up and do what they are told. WE don't want them to be idiots, but the management of the police does.
  • gasoline, on 06/12/2008, -3/+65The Twilight Zone - Examination Day

    Part I:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l94MIlxZHP4
    Part II:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnI0a9km7aQ ...
    • zephc, on 06/12/2008, -0/+16I've thought about that episode a number of times when reminded the march of anti-intellectualism in the US
      • blackmesa, on 06/12/2008, -1/+5It's big and bad. I'm worried for the US. They're no longer the leader in world scientific research (well, it's debatable, but EU is leaping forwards), they've lost the industry and manufacturing (China). A nation of nothing but 'consumers' is bad. Also, this whole "elitist" argument that popped up during the election... ?? I couldn't understand. Why _wouldn't_ you want an elite politician? Isn't that the point? You want to elect a president who is as *intellectually* elite as possible. I mean, "average joe" was president for the last 8 years and we can all see how well that panned out.
    • Diderotten, on 06/12/2008, -2/+14I've never seen that before. It's like a dark version of Idiocracy. Pretty entertaining and a little sad. To think that a system that subjugates people because of their heightened intelligence could even exist! Oh, and the video you brought up was good, too.
    • Zihuatanejo, on 06/12/2008, -2/+3Take that, you smug little over-achiever. Come on, who would rather read than watch TV?
    • stilesja, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3Who makes the test?
    • diggingaround, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Don't we call that program "No Child Left Behind"?
    • Pillage, on 06/12/2008, -1/+3Reminded me of "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut

      http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
  • InsertAName, on 06/12/2008, -2/+16I live right next to New London and... this doesn't surprise me for some reason.
    • jcm267, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1I live just north of New London and... the city that this happened in is irrelevant. No one wants their cops to be too smart.

      Oh, and this is old as Columbine news. I remember laughing about this at the lunch table at NFA. Buried as old news.
  • gbrmn, on 06/12/2008, -5/+225Published: September 9, 1999
    • VicHislop, on 06/12/2008, -1/+92So? The NY Times opened up their archives to everyone. I hope to see front page diggs soon of Zeppelins taking over our skies, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, and the debate over ratification of the 14th amendment. Now that's some news!
      • scabbers, on 06/12/2008, -1/+17This deserves a "lol".
      • passedoutghost, on 06/12/2008, -1/+6Well played sir.
      • dafunkmonster, on 06/12/2008, -2/+5I, too, welcome our new zeppelin overlords.
      • Pillage, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Germans Lose War! Kaiser Defeated!
      • likeyehokwhatev, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1I see what you did. And you did it all for the lulz.
    • georgemason01, on 06/12/2008, -4/+7Police conduct in the U.S. and Britain sure has improved since then.

      /Do I really need to say "/sarcasm" here?
    • ScottMcQueen, on 06/12/2008, -1/+209/9/99
      • jcm267, on 06/12/2008, -4/+2Yeah... thanks for reminding me about those godawful MTV commercials.
      • NOFXY, on 06/12/2008, -1/+16Dreamcast!?!?!
    • isaactwito, on 06/12/2008, -1/+2Thanks, this has been happening on Digg a lot recently, buried.
    • LRoy12, on 06/12/2008, -0/+4Dreamcast!
    • asus2000, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5Worthy of a repost every year until they stop hiring thug idiots...
    • Logal, on 06/12/2008, -2/+1Man, really?

      this story is really older than John McCain and John McCain's grandmother.

      buried, this is ridiculous.
  • RTourn, on 06/12/2008, -4/+14This explains so much.
  • zcreem, on 06/12/2008, -8/+9It worked for Bush, maybe it'll work in McCain's favour too.
    To be fair this has been going on my whole life, people are scared of anything they don't understand.
    • paradexes, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1In Comics people are scared of Mutants because they are different. Personally I would be scared of someone who could turn me into tomato paste just by looking at me. Not someone I would want to be in a stare down contest, y'know? But seriously IQ??? I guess they want knuckleheads on the force in New London, Connecticut.
      • Metasquares, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1All you need to do is look at the responses to one of those "child prodigy" stories that ends up on Digg from time to time to see that many people feel threatened by intelligence greater than their own.

        I'm not quite sure why, myself - it's not as if we're working for the benefit of different races. The more intelligent humans exist, the more we all win, provided that society stays out of their way enough to let them use their talents.
    • jcm267, on 06/12/2008, -0/+4Bush isn't an idiot, you are if you really think that he's one. This has nothing to do with the office of the President of the United States. This is a hiring policy for a job that involves sitting around holding a radar gun, doing nothing for extended periods of time, and following the department's rules and procedures. The New London Police Department looks for a worker bee and not for someone who will shake things up.
  • rzxc, on 06/12/2008, -2/+17Well... This explains a lot of questionable behavior. It does not explain why they have this criteria in the first place.
  • dkmj17, on 06/12/2008, -2/+41I like here how not only did they deny him... but they actually took the issue to court... they were so adamant about not hiring a smart guy that they actually hired lawyers to defend their decision... wow
  • selenite, on 06/12/2008, -2/+4long time ago.... still interesting though
  • funkyjunk3, on 06/12/2008, -2/+16Just how we like'em here in America. We like the Police dumb, and our Judges subservient to the Lauuwww.
  • webman77, on 06/12/2008, -9/+1''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.''
    In fact, he overreact I think!
  • mwaleed86, on 06/12/2008, -6/+1of couse!...they dont want nerds there!...
  • Zyvo, on 06/12/2008, -2/+132Oh, Onion, your wonderful satire knows no bounds.

    ....oh wait, $!#@
  • SifuMoKung, on 06/12/2008, -1/+18What would the P.D.'s objection possibly be? Are smart people somehow less able to truncheon a minority?
    • bjornski, on 06/12/2008, -0/+13They're less INCLINED to.
    • trixterIreland, on 06/12/2008, -0/+4They are smart enough to conceal illegal activity, oh wait, never mind.
    • LenBaird, on 06/12/2008, -0/+8YES. Dumb people say "OK boss, right away." Smart people say "you want me to do WHAT??"
      • OigoMiEggo, on 06/12/2008, -6/+0But that's like saying "Dumb people think "Hmm...this is against the morals I was raised on, so I won't do it." Smart People think "Hmm...this IS against my morals, but I can probably benefit greatly from this, so, ***** my morals, I'm doing it."
        • MetalPig, on 06/12/2008, -1/+4"Hmm...this is against the morals I was raised OH LOOK A DONUT!!"
  • JackHarkness, on 06/12/2008, -12/+21September 9, 1999 called they want their story back!
    • Zed00, on 06/12/2008, -1/+6You really think things have changed much since then?
    • toonworld, on 06/12/2008, -4/+4some village called, they want their idiot back
      • Gutterpunk, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2You'll be on your way then?
      • ShugNinx21, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3Well, the jerk store called and they said they're running out of you.
    • TheKeithD, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2The only news story from 9/9/99 that matters is the release of the Dreamcast.
    • Animan351, on 06/12/2008, -1/+21989 called, they want they're catchphrase back
  • elscorcho717, on 06/12/2008, -2/+10I've suspected this to be true for many years now after having dealt with more police officers than I would have ever liked to
  • Zed00, on 06/12/2008, -2/+16I guess smart people are more likely to actually consider a situation and try to solve a problem without physical force. Who's gonna be afraid of a police force like that?
  • username484767, on 06/12/2008, -14/+7pigs are pigs
  • Genshinx, on 06/12/2008, -5/+10Oh okay I see what's going.

    Hey guess I'm really worried about this Y2K thing. I've got my supplies all ready to go and my bomb shelter is in tip top shape. How are you all getting ready?
  • SharkyTech, on 06/12/2008, -1/+4Reminds me of this: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/31617.html
    But really, while it is stupid, it's not any less legal than it is to exclude someone on the basis of low test scores.
  • Mikhail101, on 06/12/2008, -1/+21wow this story is almost 10 years old
  • flashthom, on 06/12/2008, -1/+9Hot Fuzz, anyone?
    • passedoutghost, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Sergeant Nicholarse Angle to the manager's office, Sargeant Nicholarse Angle.
  • sfacets, on 06/12/2008, -1/+15Makes sense. Can't have intelligent cogs running around, they'll ruin the machine.
    • alpharaptor, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2raccoon city hired intelligent cops, and look where it got them, a police station filled with mechanical puzzles and an entire city overrun by flesh eating zombies and mutants.
  • humanerror, on 06/12/2008, -0/+8The upshot of this is that every single police officer out on the streets did poorly on their IQ test.
  • fr0ng, on 06/12/2008, -1/+5This country wants itself to be run by idiots.
  • Akairenn, on 06/12/2008, -6/+2The story is old. So what?

    Look around you. Do you believe this country is in a better position than it was a mere decade ago? Witness the continuing war against intellectual development in this country; see the effect it has had - and weep for our future.
    • thecatcantalk, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Oh, weep, weep for the dolphins. Cry for the crystals. Hug a rainbow.
  • MalusMalo, on 06/12/2008, -3/+3this is ridiculous.
  • acmeinc, on 06/12/2008, -28/+20............................................________........................
    ....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
    .............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
    .........................,/...............................................”:,........
    .....................,?......................................................,.....
    .................../...........................................................,}....
    ................./......................................................,:`^`..}....
    .............../...................................................,:”........./.....
    ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../.....
    ............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
    .........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/...........
    ..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
    ...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
    ...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../.............
    ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
    ............/.`~,......`-...................................../...................
    .............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__...........
    ,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,....
    .....`=~-,__......`,.........................................................
    ...................`=~-,,.,......................................................
    ................................`:,,...........................`..............__..
    .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
    ........................................_..........._,-%.......`...............
    ...................................,
    • feliks2, on 06/12/2008, -13/+2You dumb pieces of ***** need to stop this nonsense.
      HAHLOOOLZ I IZ SO FONNY Ctrl-C Ctrl-V HAHAHAH>!!?!?!? ()U#J!!!!!111 LUK I MADEZ A MAN!!!11!!
      • MasterGrief, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3Man, take a step back, calm down a little.
    • coolmuffin121, on 06/12/2008, -2/+3I think that's enough of that...
  • deskimo, on 06/12/2008, -7/+1I found this quote to be particularly interesting: "Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor's degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ''I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,'' he said. ''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.'' "

    Perhaps there were some irregularities in Mr. Jordan's IQ testing process.
  • fhernand, on 06/12/2008, -3/+8hmm but why didnt he dumb down his own test? I mean, he was smart enough for that... but fortunately honest enough not to.. too bad he didn't get to be a cop then.
    • 4degrees, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2they didnt want him not because he was smart, but because he was honest...
    • kleash, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1I don't think he knew, thats why they made an article
    • flameboy, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Its not like they inform the interviewee beforehand that they shouldn't do too well on the IQ test.
      Most everyone will try to do as well as possible.
  • svensksvamp, on 06/12/2008, -2/+10The thought of smart policemen is just absurd.
  • thegoadie, on 06/12/2008, -0/+6Too high on an intelligence test? What the hell is that judge thinking? Is he on drugs? How the hell can you be too smart?
    • insonh, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1in a liberal world smart is a dangerous thing

      smart people think for themselves

      look at some of the people here who will vote for Obama

      not the brightest bulbs on he tree
  • taxman, on 06/12/2008, -0/+6Maybe they should have tested the Judge for his IQ before he became the judge. Only a person with high intelligence, rational thought and ofcourse knowledge of the law should be made judge.....
  • nemo001, on 06/12/2008, -1/+11There is a direct correlation between test scores and retention. The numbers show if someone is too smart, they are more likely to leave the force. This standard is in all of local law enforcement. Being a cop is pretty tedious and boring unless you are being shot at. Then it is pretty exciting.
    • Ortheos, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I would imagine it's more interesting than working in an office. At least you get to drive around the place looking all tough in your car and uniform. You sit on your arse 80% of the time and get paid for it.

      To be a cop over here in Australia you require a university degree. You guys have a weird setup.
      • nemo001, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1We have "Police Academies" here. Maybe you have seen the movie and sequels? Training is a lot like that but not as funny. It's more like Reno 911.
  • Youreallinsane, on 06/12/2008, -0/+8I've always suspected this type of unwritten regulation. Cops are pawns used to enact and enforce often irrational and unjust laws and procedure. Those who command the police force do not want a police force that will recognize and question it's own morality, injustices and most importantly it's superiors.
    • Joetwopointoh, on 06/12/2008, -0/+4Precisely! The police force (and military) wants people who'll follow orders without question.
  • cultist667, on 06/12/2008, -7/+1Cop of the year. http://retardgenocide.com/images/retard.jpg.w300h3 ...
  • Nintendesert, on 06/12/2008, -5/+1Rabble Rabble! ...oh. 9 years ago. Very well, carry on.
    • Vet4Peace, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1Yeah, like this has changed over the last nine years. If anything, our Idiocracy has gotten worse by at least an order of magnitude.
  • eastlondoner, on 06/12/2008, -2/+28This just reinforces my opinion that America is run by complete idiots.

    his remind you much of Idiocracy? (the film)
    • mredamon, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2mkay, sir? this particular individual...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 167 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.