In 1997, Robert Jordan took the patrol officer recruitment exam for the New London Police Department in Connecticut, USA. He completed an intelligence test known as the “Wonderlic Personnel Test” and the “Educational Testing Service Test” administered by a company called the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments. Jordan scored 33 points, compared to the average of 21 points among other candidates in this test.
However, despite achieving such a high score, the police department at that time “forgot” to hire this candidate named Jordan. Jordan said he thought his chances for recruitment were over since he was already 46 years old. This age could be considered quite high for this job, especially compared to younger candidates. Nevertheless, Jordan was not satisfied, and he filed a lawsuit with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. But that was when he discovered that the real issue was the result of the intelligence test.
The then Assistant City Director, Keith Harrigan, who oversaw the recruitment process, told Jordan: “We don’t like to hire people with IQs that are too high to be police officers in this city.”
Jordan’s reaction at the time was simply one of astonishment: “Philosophically, I find it insulting to the entire law enforcement profession.”
But the logic that the police department used for their recruitment process was very clear: Any candidate who scored too high on the intelligence test would become disheartened with police work and would leave sooner or later. In fact, the city of New London estimated that they spent $25,000 to train each new police recruit, so they couldn’t afford to lose that investment on candidates who would quit right after starting the job.
“I just couldn’t accept it. And I found that there was absolutely no evidence. There is no correlation between your basic intelligence and job satisfaction or long-term employment,” Jordan said. “What kind of message does that send to kids? Work hard, but don’t be too good?”
And so, he went to court and accused the city government and the New London police department of violating his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the district court upheld the police’s reasoning: “There is a legitimate reason for the police department to require a police officer not to be too smart.”
Jordan appealed the ruling, but in 2000, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the Connecticut district court’s ruling, and Jordan was defeated again. The appellate court ruled that “the same criteria were applied to all test-takers, so Mr. Jordan’s right to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment was not violated.”
The most disappointing part for Jordan was that the court determined right and wrong based on the documentation from the testing provider. And this was explained in the court’s decision against his appeal: “We conclude that even without a statistically proven correlation between high test scores and job dissatisfaction, it is sufficient for the city to believe—based on the documentation provided by the testing provider—that such a relationship exists. The plaintiff presented some evidence that high scorers are not actually less satisfied in their jobs, but that evidence does not create a factual issue.”
In other words, all that mattered was that the city government “believed” the entrance exam had taken place as planned. As long as that belief was applied equally to all candidates, no constitutional rights were violated.
Before his defeat, Jordan had to accept his fate. But when speaking to the press, he considered himself the new face of discrimination in 1990s America. He said: “I assert that you cannot control your basic intelligence, just like your eye color, your gender, or anything else.”
But there was one lucky thing for Jordan. After failing to get hired by the police department, he was still able to find a new job at the Bureau of Prisons. This proves that at least he was not too smart to be a prison guard.
Source: Gigazine