Solutions to problems where a variety of tensions are at play are often hard to find. Chicago, in an excess of caution, has managed to come up with a solution that fails everyone. Rather than suffer the risk of a police test that could open the door to charges of racial disparity and adverse impact, they favor instead doing away with any test for qualifications at all.
Via Jonathon Turley (aside: see how I still link to you even though you lost to Randazza’s Legal Satyricon in the ABA Blawg 100 Beauty Pageant?), and Ted Frank at Overlawyered (aside: see Ted, I don’t always disagree with you), comes this Chicago Sun-Times story:
The Chicago Police Department is seriously considering scrapping the police entrance exam to bolster minority hiring, save millions on test preparation and avert costly legal battles that have dogged the exam process for decades, City Hall sources said Tuesday.
Calling an application-only process a “step backward” and the “wrong way to go,” Woods said, “When you lower your quality, you will get poor police service and more complaints. … Whenever you make it easier to be the police, you’re doing the citizens and the Police Department a disservice.”
Those of us who focus on the cops, highlighting misconduct and abuse, have an acute appreciation of how difficult it is to do the job well, safely, honestly. This is a very difficult job. Any fool can shoot a taser. It takes a far more intelligent mind to resolve a situation without resort to force. This isn’t the way to get the job done properly.
The initial criteria for the application-only process appears, on its surface, aren’t bad on their face:
The initial criteria for the application-only process appears, on its surface, aren’t bad on their face:
Applicants would need to have at least 60 semester (90 quarter) hours of college credit or four years of continuous active duty in the U.S. armed forces — or 30 semester (or 45 quarter) hours of college credit and one year of continuous active duty in the military.
But that would be a fine starting point, not the totality of qualifications.
“We were getting people with 60 hours of college credit who were reading at a third-grade level. What do you think you’ll get if you have no screening process?”
What’s interesting is that it’s not just people inclined toward concern about police abuse and misconduct, or the abrogation of constitutional rights, who see this idea as utterly nuts. It’s across the spectrum.
Fraternal Order of Police President Mark Donahue said the idea “sounds too stupid to be true.”
“You need a testing process. … You need to be very concerned about the very limited information you would get from just a screening and application process,” Donahue said.
From the standpoint of a police officer, do you really want the dumbest guy in the room backing you up? Do you really want to deal with your partner beating people or blowing cases? It’s bad enough that they have to lie to cover up for smart cops.
Turley, similarly incredulous that this is something a city would seriously consider doing, asks:
Unfortunately, removing bias in the exam would require removing bias in society, making this solution easier to suggest than accomplish. While the interest in eliminating prejudice and achieving racial equality is strong, the practical ramifications are not merely problematic for all, but particularly dangerous for blacks and Hispanics, in whose communities police tend to spend most of their time.
It’s hard to imagine that Chicago is going to really throw up its hands, let anyone who can read at a third grade level or fire a gun become a cop and watch as this whole misguided concept goes into the toilet. Granted, after the catch-22 decision in Ricci v. Stefano, governments lack any clue how to deal with claims of bias in testing procedures, finding themselves on the losing end of the deal no matter what they do.
While it’s understandable that Chicago, in need of police officers and unable to figure out how to test without running afoul o the law, would look for an alternative, this is clearly the worst idea possible for all involved.
Turley, similarly incredulous that this is something a city would seriously consider doing, asks:
It would appear that you do not want just minority officers but the most qualified minority officers. Rather than drop the entrance exam, the city would be better off removing any bias in the exam and actively recruiting minority officers from Chicago and the military.
Unfortunately, removing bias in the exam would require removing bias in society, making this solution easier to suggest than accomplish. While the interest in eliminating prejudice and achieving racial equality is strong, the practical ramifications are not merely problematic for all, but particularly dangerous for blacks and Hispanics, in whose communities police tend to spend most of their time.
It’s hard to imagine that Chicago is going to really throw up its hands, let anyone who can read at a third grade level or fire a gun become a cop and watch as this whole misguided concept goes into the toilet. Granted, after the catch-22 decision in Ricci v. Stefano, governments lack any clue how to deal with claims of bias in testing procedures, finding themselves on the losing end of the deal no matter what they do.
While it’s understandable that Chicago, in need of police officers and unable to figure out how to test without running afoul o the law, would look for an alternative, this is clearly the worst idea possible for all involved.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, since they can’t hire every applicant, instead of a flawed but somewhat objective and well-defined exam process, acceptance into police ranks will be decided by…well, you know how Chicago works, right? This sounds like just another way for Mayor Daley and his cronies to dole out police jobs to their buddies. Work hard to get your Alderman re-elected, and your son gets to be a cop!
Corruption? Chicago? Whatever do you mean?
As a solo attorney practicing in Chicago, I’d have to agree with Windypundit as to the likely motive for scrapping the exam (btw I took the exam in ’97 — wasn’t tough, but I guess that just shows how I benefit from privilege and bias…).
With an objective exam it’s much more difficult for the alderman to get your son a job as a cop if he’s too dumb to pass the exam along with the thousands of others who can walk and breathe at the same time.
College credit is a great start, but I think they already require a significant amount of college credit. And as we all know, college credit doesn’t make you smart or polite — only shows you can make it through some college classes, and MAY be able to read.
Reminiscent of the plan Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser floated a couple years ago to bump up minority hiring in the police department. He suggested waiving the “no felony conviction” rule, since, you know, all minorities must have convictions.
Actually, this can be a big problem when minorities are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system due, in large part, to the “war on drugs.”
A single felony conviction, even without jail time, can render someone almost completely disenfranchised. Not only would it bar someone from being a cop, but also make them ineligible for financial aid for college, prevent them from getting into the military, and keep someone from voting. Tough to get by with all of those opportunities removed.
Perhaps the “felony conviction” rule is more an issue than the bias of the entrance exam.
Jake: I understand what you’re saying. I think what had many people so chagrined about the mayor’s proposal was the implication that there were no qualified minority candidates, due to the enforcement of the “no felony” rule. Perhaps sarcasm was not the best way to make this point in my previous two sentence comment.