US Court Rules Discrimination is Legal

By Tom Rhodes, 7/8/2013

US federal courts have ruled that if you can show a "rational basis" for discrimination against persons with a common genetic trait, that such discrimination is legal. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision claims it's reasonable to not hire men of above average IQ in order to reduce the expense of job turnover. Because just like skin color, eye color, height, sex, etc. no individual has control over their genetic makeup, which includes IQ, the court has effectively said that it's ok to not hire somebody if there is a "rational basis" that such genetic variance can lead to increased job turnover. This is an interesting new standard which if applied equally, effectively legalizes descrimination.

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.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.

But the U.S. District Court found that New London had "shown a rational basis for the policy." In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.

Based on this court precedent it is rational to consider persons common a genetic traits in hiring as a means to reduce job turn over. This begs some interesting but politically incorrect questions.

Does this court ruling overturn the court rulings that force cities to dumb down civil service tests for firefighters etc. when not enough minorities pass the test? If getting too high a grade is "a rational basis" to exclude somebody from the job pool, why isn't too low a grade?

Does this mean that because there is a statistical increase in the chances that persons with a common genetic trait, like skin color, being imprisoned (which puts a damper on going to work), that to avoid job turnover it's rationale not to hire young black men?

Does this mean that because there is a statistical increase in the chances that persons with a common genetic trait, like sex, leads to increase in leaving a job to raise children that that to avoid job turnover it's rationale not to hire women of child bearing age?

Lucky for us that the rule of law is dead in the USA, if the government actually enforced the rule of law equality for everybody then sexism, racism, ageism, etc. are now all legal. Because our nation has abandoned the rule of law you don't have to worry, it only applies to Politically Correct discrimination. The way our government works, the law will be applied to allow discrimination against smart white Judeo/Christian men.