I note that the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York has upheld the judgment of a lower court that Robert Jordan did not suffer discrimination when the city of New London denied him employment as a police officer on the grounds that he was over the intelligence range they'd specified for the job. According to ABC News:
Jordan ... scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
There's more at the link.
I've encountered this attitude before. I score high on intelligence tests. When I applied for a commission in the armed forces in my younger days, I was informed (rather rudely) by a military psychologist that I was way outside the normal range for that profession. He questioned my motivation, cast aspersions on the elements of my character that he said the military really wanted in its officers, and so on. (I wasn't commissioned at that point. That happened later - and no, at that point I didn't find my personality, aptitudes or intelligence any handicap. I can't speak for how others found them, of course!)
I'm of two minds about this case. I'm aware that many employers specify an IQ range for applicants in general, on the grounds that those below that range are unlikely to be smart enough to do the job, and those above it will find the job insufficiently challenging, and either get bored and not perform, or quit after a relatively short time to find something more interesting. On the other hand, those making that assumption can't possibly know the motivation of each and every individual. Their rule is a generalization, rather than something specific to the person concerned.
That's why Mr. Jordan sued in the first place - because he felt "his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law". Frankly, I agree with him. As an individual, I think his civil rights were violated, because aspersions were cast upon his 'staying power' as a result of his intelligence, without any evidence that he, personally, had a problem like that. As a member of a group (i.e. all applicants) . . . that's a lot more tricky. The courts have taken the latter view, and ruled that the city had grounds for its decision based on its experience with applicants in general.
I wonder how much of this 'discrimination' is based on a perception on the part of those who are policemen, or who've 'grown up' in the 'cop culture'? Have they encountered people of high intelligence and been put off by an overly 'highbrow' attitude? Have they had to deal with too many white-collar criminals who sneer at police for being 'lowbrow'? Has that carried over into their recruitment policies? I'd be grateful to hear from others in the profession whether there's any truth, potential or actual, in that premise. For example, when I served as a prison chaplain, I had to deal with other officers as well as inmates. From my perspective, I can't say I ever found my IQ to be a stumbling-block; but that's necessarily a very subjective point of view! I might have been wrong.
(On the other hand, I can't help but think that many other cases point to the need for a higher level of intelligence among police to begin with! Of course, not all cops are that dumb, to put it mildly. I'm blessed and honored to call several police officers my friends, and I think all of them are just as smart as I am, if not more so!)
What say you, readers - particularly those who are part of the Thin Blue Line?