That could contribute to an explanation for some of the policies and statements about those policies that we have encountered ("Get a big dog", anyone?). Isn't it a Catch-22 if you have to have a logic-based argument with the lower IQ authorities about allowing the higher-IQ applicants to be hired?  What good would "activism" do under such circumstances?

Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

Excerpt:

A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and 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.

* * * * *
I'd like to see Hawaii's scores, county by county. And how they arrived at those scores, given the penchant to lie about everything that could reflect "poorly" upon them.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and 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.

Seriously?! 

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.

Seriously?! 

Yes, seriously. As the article states, the judge used the "rational basis" standard (as opposed to "intermediate scrutiny" or "strict scrutiny") and found that the claim that employing higher IQ applicants could increase the turnover rate met the standard. One then has to wonder if among the already limited range of acceptable lower IQed hired personnel the standards for promotion are also based upon not being of sufficient IQ (even within that lowered range) that one might tend to use a position of higher authority to scrutinize department policies that someone of higher IQ might find reason to question.

I have a number of personal examples from several Hawaii police departments where I have asked very specific and detailed questions so as to leave virtually no possibility of ambiguity or misunderstanding, yet received answers that were evasive at best, and complete non-answers at less than best. I mostly attributed these responses to 1. deliberate obfuscation with the intent to stonewall or interminably delay any true discovery without prolonged and expensive litigation, or 2. covering their ass because they had violated the law. I know that I both thought to myself and said to other people "I'm pretty sure they're not that fucking stupid" to have supplied the "answer" they did. Now I have to reconsider that hypothesis.

I believe it.  None of the cops I know seemed to have above average intelligence.  Two good friends I have who became police officers, one was just a 2.0 grade average in high school.  The other one who had a 3.2 average left the department after a couple of years to open his own PI business.  He is still a PI after 25 years.

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.
Yes, seriously. As the article states, the judge used the "rational basis" standard (as opposed to "intermediate scrutiny" or "strict scrutiny") and found that the claim that employing higher IQ applicants could increase the turnover rate met the standard. One then has to wonder if among the already limited range of acceptable lower IQed hired personnel the standards for promotion are also based upon not being of sufficient IQ (even within that lowered range) that one might tend to use a position of higher authority to scrutinize department policies that someone of higher IQ might find reason to question.

I have a number of personal examples from several Hawaii police departments where I have asked very specific and detailed questions so as to leave virtually no possibility of ambiguity or misunderstanding, yet received answers that were evasive at best, and complete non-answers at less than best. I mostly attributed these responses to 1. deliberate obfuscation with the intent to stonewall or interminably delay any true discovery without prolonged and expensive litigation, or 2. covering their ass because they had violated the law. I know that I both thought to myself and said to other people "I'm pretty sure they're not that fucking stupid" to have supplied the "answer" they did. Now I have to reconsider that hypothesis.

I was more "seriously" that they shared that position/fact.  It was a little smaller seriously for that being a policy in the first place.

I too have many friends that are cops, here as well as on the mainland.  I would say that many of them are pretty intelligent, though some of them might not be the poster children for academic excellence.  However, that's the case with all professions/people.  There will always be the uber-intelligent ones that just doesn't want a desk job or truly enjoys being an LEO. 

Then again, one of my best friends is a cop and he's right 99% of the time (says him).  I was planning on showing him this article.   

I can see how people getting trained and then leaving is a concern for the department but this is still kinda questionable. I mean, at least it is consistent...

I am fine with this, but only if: 1) test takers are made aware beforehand that scoring too high could lead to not being chosen, and 2) all disability laws relating to the equal treatment of people with mental retardation are also repealed.

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.

125 is too high?  Such a person would probably not even be able to hack an engineering major in college!

I suspect the issue is they do not want cops that are able to think analytically, but those that will toe the line as handed down, without question.  Explains why so many dirty cops get away with a slap on the wrist.  They are a highly valued, obedient asset to the state.

I vas only following der orders, mein herr..............

this is discrimination.
TransLatitudeIQ bias.
LBGTIQ unite! 

If a person can identify with whatever gender they want why can't a lateral IQ person have a job as a police officer?