Well now, I - for one - am somewhat less perplexed by the way things work in our fine nation.
This explains so much.
Apparently, itâs not discrimination because the same test applies to everyone - âSorry, youâre too female - but itâs ok, because we apply the female test to everyone.â
As ridiculous as this policy is, itâs not discrimination in that way - after all, weâd have no problem with would-be police officers being disqualified for scoring too low on the test, would we?
It is (mostly) illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender. It is completely legal to discriminate on the basis of intelligence. (going with the definition of discrimination of âmaking a distinctionâ)
People get turned down for jobs for being âoverqualifiedâ all the time.
Seems reasonable to me that smarter people might not be that good at unquestionably following orders and enforcing rules. Perhaps the question should be " do we want police work to be a job that smarter people arenât well suited to, and if not, how should we change the nature of police work?"
At least he went on to enjoy great success with his âWheel of Timeâ series.
Does the military reject people on the basis of too-high IQ?
I have three friends who have at various time applied to be cops. All three were rejected. Two for being too smart and one for showing too many signs of independent decision making.
Thus, I have no friends that are cops.
So they wouldnât hire someone like Arthur Dietrich in New Haven.
It is discrimination in that way. It is not discrimination to exclude someone from a job based on things that are tied to actual job requirements.
Rocket Scientists need to understand rockets to be effective rocket scientists. Firefighters have to be able to lift a certain amount of weight to be effective firefighters. Sex workers need to be of the appropriate sex for the target clientele of the brothel to be effective sex workers. Things that would be discriminatory for one job are not discriminatory to another.
On the other hand, if we disqualified a firefighter for being able to lift too much weight, I think eyebrows would rightly rise.
To say that this is not discriminatory is to say that one cannot be an effective police officer if one is too smart.
(On the other hand, at least in my jurisdiction, what counts and does not count as discrimination is based on defined criteria and being very smart is not one of them, so you wouldnât have much of a legal case unless you went to the supreme court and had that confirm that was a reasonable, logical extension of the existing criteria)
This has not been kept secret at all. The thinking is, an overly smart cop will be inclined to interpret the law in a way the beurocracy didnât anticipate, so keep them dumb and complient.
If less intelligent cops are more likely to be violent, well, thatâs still acting in the beurocracys best interest. Itâs not like weâre given a choice or anything.
Reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode that really freaked me out as a kid.
Well a smart officer might be more effective in my book, but my view of appropriate police behavior seems to live on a different planet than police forcesâ view of what is appropriate police behavior.
If one of the requirements is âdo what youâre told and donât ask any questionsâ then intelligence would seem to make for an ineffective officer. Of course I also think that whiny 'fraidy delicate dollies make for bad police (âI had to shoot him because he made me so afraid!â), so what do I know?
I know youâre joking, but intelligence is not one of the 12 protected classes in the US, while sex is.
Not that that has any baring on the matter of whether the police should bar intelligent people from joining.
Applying to join a police force is pretty strong evidence that the applicant is not the kind of person I want doing police work.
YMMV
In this context, itâs useful to qualify the word âdiscrimination.â âDiscriminationâ really only means distinguishing, although thereâs generally a negative connotation to the word. Itâs not illegal discrimination or improper discrimination to choose candidates on the basis of legitimate qualifications. It is discrimination in the broad sense of the word.
This is seems like a semantic nit-pick. However, having seen discussions get derailed on related confusions, Iâve found it useful to discriminate between the meanings of âdiscriminate.â
Well the reason is obvious. High-IQ detectives are always private. Look at Holmes, Poirot, Marple⌠heck, the only counterexample I can think of is Clousseau.
Then there was Columbo, but no one knew his IQ because fuck your tests!
