ABC News reports that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed the discrimination claim of an applicant to the New London, Conn., police department who was rejected because he scored too high on an intelligence test. The department’s reason for rejecting high-scoring applicants was that they might become bored with police work. The policy, the court found, met the rational-basis test.
Obviously, this could be applied to lots of occupations. I leave it to the readers to consider and discuss.
One of my brightest students, while working on her MA in English, was turned down to teach AP English classes, although otherwise completely qualified, because her grades as an undergraduate (a 3.9 overall) were "too high." The high school administrators were afraid she would not be able to empathize with all of the "ordinary" students in the AP classes . . .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne of my college girlfriend's roommates was a 4.0 brainiac English/Secondary Ed major who would read Chaucer in Middle English and actually laugh out loud at the "humor".
Her student teaching ended prematurely with notes that she should "find another line of work". Presumably, they figured that, save teaching a roomful of similarly gifted people, she would fail miserably.
She had the personality of a fence post.
It was a good decision from what I could tell.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe obvious one that occurs to me is Appelate Court Judge
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo paraphrase Justice Thomas, something has gone seriously awry with the courts' interpretation of the Constitution when its permissible for both municipalities to deny applicants jobs because they are "too intelligent" and public schools to admit objectively less qualified applicants under affirmative action policies.
The Founders must be rolling in their graves over what has become of their meritocracy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Obviously, this could be applied to lots of occupations."
It is. Corporations routinely reject candidates that they feel are overqualified.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWere it a private corporation, would you not stoutly defend its right to set its hiring policies?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe we should have applied this standard to Barack in 2008. He seems rather bored by the job - must be because he's too intelligent for the minor task of running a country. At least, that's what Chris Matthews tells me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseErr... be mediocre! You won't get rejected that way. Will people 1000 years from now look at instances like this as a token (but clearly not the sole reason itself) for our collapse? The symbolism is great... people who perform too well on tests get rejected, so in order to be accepted you have to strategically perform worse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot surprising, really. Obviously, this criteria has been used for placing federal judges for decades, albeit without much publicity. (What? Too obvious a joke?)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePeter, I wonder if you've seen the recent story about the EEOC decision of the last several weeks that suggests employers can no longer "discriminate" against applicants based on the fact that the applicant may not have a high school degree?
The rationale was that people without high school degrees are likely to be "learning disabled" and as such, they're protected under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
No, I'm not making that up. The policy is an interesting bookend to this idiotic Appellate decision.
We're moving from a country that celebrates excellence to one that rewards idiocy and sloth, handsomely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh no, no, Scott. Surely you ~are~ making this up! But then, you are not the type to make things up...not even the type to be careless in small details. Googling like mad here...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wish I were....
External Link
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, sacrebleu!
EEOC: High school diploma requirement might violate Americans with Disabilities Act
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA perfect bookend to the recent federal advisory letter that suggested requiring a high school diploma from a job applicant might be considered "discrimination.".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEmployers, even municipalities, should be able to hire the workforce that they desire without fear of lawsuits. That being said, if I were a resident of New London, I would be moving to a place where the police are smarter than the criminals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the court is (technically) correct on this one. IQ is neither covered by the Equal Protection clause nor is it a protected class against which one may not discriminate, i.e. race, gender, etc.
If the New London PD insists on police officers below a certain IQ level, well, that's their business. Of course, if I paid taxes in New London I'd raise holy hell at city hall over this. If I were currently a New London police officer, I'd be insulted beyond description. Still, it has been shown that the more intelligent someone is, the quicker they get bored.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbsolutely correct. The question the court was addressing is not whether this is a good policy, it's whether the Constitution forbids it. We don't have to agree that smart people will get bored as police officers to agree that the city of New London should be able to have whatever stupid hiring policy they want without the federal courts interfering (unless that policy is prohibited by the Constitution or federal law). The folks who think the court was wrong here should cite chapter and verse of the Constitution or the federal law that's violated by this city policy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI had to chuckle. It will take milliseconds before someone publishes this "proof" that cops are stupid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat planet do you people live on? You've never heard of someone being overqualified for a job? Being against preferences for "unqualified" applicants is defensible, but why would you want courts being involved in a hiring decision in a case like this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNew London has the distinction of being named in a couple of big court cases, neither of which have been resolved correctly in the minds of those who love liberty. So how'd you like to be chairman of the New London Chamber of Commerce right now?
"We reward mediocrity AND seize your property!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse