Identify the ethical dilemma, relationship, case, or issue/subject you are studying, and explain why it is significant, both to you and the U

Subject:WritingPrice:19.89 Bought3

Share With

• Identify the ethical dilemma, relationship, case, or issue/subject you are studying, and explain why it is significant, both to you and the U.S. national security community writ large.
• Provide relevant background on your research topic. If any, what have been the prior decisions or ethical baggage that has affected the current reality of the relationship, dilemma, case etc.?  What key constituencies, interests, or stakeholders are involved in your study and how do they weigh in on your subject?   
• How are ethical considerations present in your chosen topic, and which ethical principles are most at play in your chosen subject? You may shape the analysis of your topic through one or more relevant ethical viewpoints, including, eventually, your own.   
• Through your analysis, what problems or dilemmas in national security are you uncovering in your research, and how might the situation or condition be remedied? What possible solutions can you recommend to the national security community, or the broader public?
• Finally, in your conclusion, how can what you have analyzed lead to improved practices, operations etc. in the relevant national security domain you investigated? Assume you are briefing someone senior, and lay out your assessments, conclusions and recommendations to the relevant national security community.

Research Guide Resources: Key Journals to Review: Journal of Military Ethics (Links to an external site.) Ethics and International Affairs Journal (Links to an external site.) Public Integrity (Links to an external site.) Armed Forces and Society (Links to an external site.) Military Review (Links to an external site.) Journal of Business Ethics (Links to an external site.) Key Research Sites to Review: Homeland Security Digital Library (Links to an external site.) United States Naval Academy, Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership (Links to an external site.) Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. (Links to an external site.) Santa Clara University. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (Links to an external site.). Stockholm University. Stockholm Centre for the Ethics of War and Peace (Links to an external site.). Oxford University. Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (Links to an external site.). Harvard University Center for Ethics (Links to an external site.). USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism Diversity, Cohesion, and the Responsibility of Power Module 6 Diversity in America – The Paradox of Achieving Equality for All Opportunity, Representation and Diversity Diversity, Cohesion and Strength – The Ethical Practice of Inclusion Diversity, Cohesion and Strength – The Practical Power of Inclusion Inclusion, Power and Responsibility Lesson 1 of 5 Diversity in America – The Paradox of Achieving Equality for All “Our nation needs diverse voices around the table. Whether it is a CEO’s table, the Joint Chiefs’ table, or the cabinet of the United States, a diversity of thought, background, heritage, race, and gender all add to the capability of any leader to make a decision. It makes our nation stronger and better.” - General Lori Robinson (2020) The United States began as a country with inequality built into its Constitution, but with equality for all “men” as an aspirational vision. African Americans were “three-?fths” human for Congressional representation and the domestic political power aims of the southern states, while Native Americans were completely disenfranchised and entirely ignored, except, of course, when treated horri?cally (e.g., Cherokee “removal” and the “Trail of Tears,” a result of policy beginning in 1830). The U.S. fought a civil war in large part to overcome the worst of what it had been until then, and although the U.S. did well for a time under President Ulysses Grant’s Reconstruction efforts, in particular, there was dramatic decline in equity and inclusion beginning in the 1880s. This formal era of segregation did not really begin coming to an end until the 1950s. But, already after WWI, U.S. leaders recognized that our “values and institutions,” the U.S.’s soft power dimension, required living up to American aspirational rhetoric. Soldiers in the 369th regiment who won the Croix de Guerre for gallantry in World War I, 1919. For example, despite Woodrow Wilson’s overt racism, the U.S. conscripted approximately 380,000 African Americans into war time service, and nearly 200,000 African American service members went to France during the war. One of the most famous units was the US Army 's 93rd Combat Division, 369th Infantry Regiment (better known as the “Harlem Hell?ghters;” Gates, 2013). The two all African American combat divisions saw some 42,000 soldiers ?ght the Germans in WWI, while the Harlem Hell?ghters were chosen by the French to be the ?rst American unit to reach the Rhine River at war’s end in November 1918. Chad Williams' work demonstrated that these veterans played important roles in the postwar resiliency of the African American community to press forward with demands for civil rights, despite the hell of the “Red Summer” of 1919, and the return of widespread violence against African Americans (Williams, 2007). This violence and social unrest was seized upon by the U.S. government and news outlets like the New York Times whose headline on July 28, 1919, read: “Reds Try to Stir Negroes to Revolt.” Theodore Kornweibel summarized the result of entrenched white elite fear of lost position: “ New Crowd Negroes faced an adversary far better organized, more powerful, and more ruthless than they could ever be. The postwar months were the most militant era of African-American history until the modern civil rights period, but the political intelligence establishment born in World War I was able to block that militancy by making the maintenance of white supremacy part of the nation’s security agenda, thus legitimizing the suppression of racial activism” - (Kornweibel, 2002, p.276) Nursery school children play with a scale model of their barracks at the Tule Lake Relocation Center, Newell, California, on September 11, 1942. Japanese Americans experienced similar discrimination in WWII, and nonetheless formed two signi?cant Army combat units, the 100th Infantry Battalion and the 442nd Infantry Regiment. These two units fought the Germans and Italians in Europe and became the most decorated American units of World War II. Raised from the internment camps, these second-generation Nisei Japanese American units performed valiantly (much like the Red Tail squadrons you learned about in Module 2), but not in ignorance. They knew they that “the senior military leadership outside of their unit viewed them as expendable or cannon fodder. Nonetheless, every one of the Nisei Soldiers took up the challenge, despite their awareness of being used.” Why did they ?ght so resolutely? U.S. Army Colonel Hiraoki Morita based his analysis in veteran interviews and summarized some of his ?ndings in 1992: “ There were many reasons this unit fought as hard and as well as it did. The reasons lie in their culture, common backgrounds, values and collective training. They also lie in the clarity of purpose and a shared goal for all members of the unit. They had a mission - To win freedom for their families in internment camps and to prove their loyalty by distinguishing themselves in combat.” - (Morita, 1992, p.16) Many decades later this valor and the injustice of internment were acknowledged by the U.S. government, but not before an obvious and unsubtle understanding emerged – only those minority groups willing and able to distinguish themselves through service were likely to be able to exercise full citizenship and advancement within American society. Yet, these units were comprised of only Japanese Americans, like the 369th in WWI for African Americans; what would become of these same human aspirations when the services necessarily became integrated? What would become of aspiring minorities and reluctant whites then, and how would this affect those forces and the broader society? Lesson 2 of 5 Opportunity, Representation and Diversity President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces by executive order (No. 9881) in July 1948, and since this time, the U.S. armed forces have been one of the most successful American institutions in terms of diversity and inclusion. No other institution has seen more progress in terms of representation in the ranks. US DOD Graph Figure 3 Yet, even here we can see stalled progress at the top – informal restrictions on advancement to the highest ranks and career paths with mentors to get there etc. (see Figure 3, U.S. D.O.D. Board on Diversity and Inclusion, 2020, p. 9).For example, in the Army you often need an Armor and combat experience path, not logistics, or support services experiences; in the Navy, you need Captaincies of major vessels, not cooks, mechanics and other support occupations, which have been historically slotted to minorities. The ?gure herein from the DOD Board on Diversity and Inclusion report in your reading shows the racial composition across all U.S. Armed Forces, from the lowest rank of ensign or private, E-1, to the highest rank, O-10, of general or admiral. Of note, while Whites make up 49 percent of the lowest rank, E-1, they make up 92 percent at the highest rank, O-10. This over-representation of Whites as the ranks progress upward is mirrored by the under-representation for Blacks and Hispanics at the higher ranks. African Americans are 21 percent of the lowest rank, but only 5 percent of the highest rank, while Hispanics fall from 22 percent of the lowest rank to approximately 1 percent at the highest rank. U.S. Military Academy Graduation The mentalities and expectations that lead to these results have lingered, as the testimonies you saw from the four recent U.S. Naval Academy graduates attest to. Still, the representation in the armed services for minorities is greater than in other American institutions, such as among the leading companies -- the Fortune 500, where leadership is still held predominantly by white males. For example, whereas in the Fortune 500 less than 1 percent of top leaders are African Americans, across all branches of the military services, that share is 5 percent for the top o?cer grade, or rank (ibid, p.9). This still deviates from the population share of approximately 13 percent for African Americans, but, relatively, the armed services are better than business in top tier representation of minorities. For further information on minority representation, re-read the assigned USA Today article. You can also review the images on this page. Race and Ethnicity in Active US Military Ranks Race and Ethnicity by Military Branch Hispanic Representation in Active US Military Ranks One of the bene?ts of diversity is the difference of opinion that it can bring, the bucking of Groupthink and poor decision-making that often follows from inadequate analysis, debate and differences coming to the fore. General Eric Shinseki epitomized this when he frankly told the Congress that the successful prosecution of the war against Iraq in 2003 would require “several hundred thousand soldiers.” He was immediately rebuked by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, who argued back: “Some of the higher-end predictions that we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam (Hussein) Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in a post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself.” (Schmitt, 2003). Review the YouTube video entitled Gen. Eric Shinseki from 02-25-03 at https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=a_xchyIeCQw. While African Americans are approximately 17% of the U.S. armed forces, up from lower percentages in the Korean War era, there are still service differences, with the U.S. Navy still lagging the Army considerably. This is most marked in the special forces branches and at the highest ranks of the services. For example, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki responds to a reporter's question during a Pentagon press brie?ng on the Army beret with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz on March 16, 2001. Shinseki was removed from his position in the aftermath of this anti-Groupthink, candid and accurate assessment, while Wolfowitz was rewarded for his many falsehoods (e.g., the Iraqis can pay for their own reconstruction from oil sales) in getting the World Bank chairmanship, as Robert McNamara had before him. Was General Shinseki’s honesty derived from his own experiences as a minority and his knowledge of Japanese Americans’ history in the armed services? The fact that he was the only minority on the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the picture at the top of this module illustrates, begs us to ask what the bene?ts are to any group in this unique national security domain, and therefore to all of us, in having more diverse people and perspectives. Perhaps minorities are more likely to position themselves against abuses of a more unthinking majority, incentivizing some others to do the same, and yielding a better overall result. One thing that is still painfully clear is that if you are alone within a group you may experience debilitating discrimination and harassment, as the suicide in Afghanistan of private Danny Chen in 2011 attests. Lesson 3 of 5 Diversity, Cohesion and Strength – The Ethical Practice of Inclusion “The pain associated with diversity can be thought of as the pain of exercise. You have to push yourself to grow your muscles. The pain, as the old saw goes, produces the gain. In just the same way, we need diversity—in teams, organizations, and society as a whole—if we are to change, grow, and innovate.” Katherine Phillips Katherine Phillips’ observation highlights that forging cohesive functioning enterprises from diverse groupings of people is not a seamless process. But, from some necessary amount of friction and perhaps just simple human awkwardness, stronger and better performing groups can be formed. Resistance and friction in interacting with “the other” is a part of the human condition, but like all important things in life, it can be overcome through training, experience and time. Tolerance and understanding also play a role in successful inclusion and cooperation among peoples. This may seem simply a noble end, but is it ethical self-interested too? In what ways is it ethical to seek more diversity in human groupings? Recall our 5 simple ethical archetypes: 1 Which action will produce the most good and do the least harm? = The Utilitarian Approach. 2 Which action respects the rights of all who have a stake in the decision? = The Rights Approach. 3 Which action treats people equally or proportionately? = The Justice Approach. 4 Which action serves the community as a whole, not just some members? = The Common Good Approach. 5 Which action leads me to act as the sort of person I should be? = The Virtue Approach. It seems self-evident that 2-5 are upheld through the conscious inclusion of diverse peoples, but what of 1, the utilitarian, performance only, ends justi?es the means ethical standard? Do diverse groups perform better than homogenous ones, do they create the greatest good at the least cost, however this might be measured? The debate about diversity ’s effect on cohesion and performance is longstanding, and has led to many conceptual caveats (e.g., task cohesion v. social cohesion; primary v. secondary group cohesion etc.). However, it is well accepted that discrimination and injustice lead to disunity and poorer performance, compared to diverse groups that achieve high cohesion. This does not mean that diversity characteristics can, or should, become the primary rationale for how to build memberships in high-performing groups. There has to be earned trust, “re?exive trust,” among group members based in shared experiences -- of rigorous training, for example, that allows people of widely different backgrounds to see each other as equally capable. This can be built through training and education, whether in the U.S. special forces that Anna Simons writes about, or the regular voluntary, yet professional, forces Anthony King writes about; or, of course, in other professional civilian environments. King explores the modern reality of professional volunteer forces well; they might not be cohesive personally, but they cohere “based on competence.” (King, 2013, p.7). They may “straight up hate each other, but they would also die for each other” due to this rigorous system of grounding everyone in professional competence. This forges the re?exive trust that then allows any diverse group to function at a higher level. The common good, justice, equal rights and virtues ethical approaches are being practiced through these efforts, but what of utilitarian power concerns? Lesson 4 of 5 Diversity, Cohesion and Strength – The Practical Power of Inclusion Female Air Force KC-10 pilot controls the aircraft during a midair refueling mission over Southwest Asia, Jan. 4, 2020. Building cohesion from competent professionalism is what allows national security institutions to bene?t from more inclusive memberships, whether it is women volunteering to ?ght in the air or infantry ranks that King focuses on, or in the policy realms of upper administrative echelons in state bureaucracies. The U.S. has done signi?cantly better at integrating women and other minorities into its national security services, but King is right to highlight others’ work on Soviet women ?ghting with high e?cacy against the Germans in WWII. Some of this ?rst-mover invention then was born of necessity, but in the U.S., minority groups have advanced on the merits of their own cases, even if this has often been a Sisyphean struggle at times. While there are many gaps here, from women being serially mistreated within a military struggling to provide safety and justice for them, to the seemingly inexorable rise in recent times of white supremacists within the military and broader institutions of the state itself. View the YouTube video entitled Mullen praises end to military gay ban at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUclZv-J6KY This is of course true of the LGBTQ community and their struggle for equitable and just treatment, from the “don’t ask don’t tell” era, repealed o?cially in 2010, to January 2021 and the executive order repealing a ban against transgender service personnel. Admiral Michael Mullen articulated the ethos of inclusivity well in 2011, and his fundamental premise is as solid as Washington’s Farewell Address: “It is fundamentally against everything we stand for as an institution to ask people to lie about who they are just to wear a uniform. We are better than that.” Lesson 5 of 5 Inclusion, Power and Responsibility For the U.S., diversity, equity and inclusion are a source of strength. They are part of the founding ethos of the nation, and a core component of the soft power of American attractiveness, bringing talent around the world to the U.S., even from hostile foreign powers, as they always have. As mentioned before in the course, Albert Einstein came here, he did not rest in the United Kingdom, but chose the U.S., as so many others have done, precisely because of the commitment to equal justice under law, pledged to every day by every school kid in the land. Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the next Sec Def DOD Some of this rubs off and lasts, yielding leaders who bring more of us along to help build a better America. There are dozens of examples of wins in the intelligence community because of disaffected people laboring under authoritarian regimes who help the U.S. so that their “yearnings to breathe free” might come to pass. Developing more of the least advantaged among us, from within, can only redound to American power and interest, but it means so much more to all of us when each one of us can advance, fully and freely. General Shinseki noted this duty applicable to any leader in the security domain, but American commanders in particular: I’ve always considered myself, in addition to being the commander, the safety officer of every organization I led…That was something I could not hand off to anybody else. And the second thing I always considered myself as being was the diversity officer…Yes, there are other people who had staff responsibilities for all this, but ultimately, those two responsibilities I saw as my own, because they are consequential of good and strong leadership. (General Eric Shinseki, quoted in Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2011, p.10). 1 Research Paper Topic Proposal: Ethical Dilemma Among Leaders Student name College name National Security Ethics Professor Date 2 The ethical dilemma has usually been a hot topic in the armed forces because of its involvement in high-security matters, especially at the national level. In this case, leaders, especially presidents, are placed in positions to make sound judgments regarding a national security issue. However, sometimes their decisions come to haunt them because they seem unethical and lack moral justification. The main factor that can be attributed to my observation is that those meant to make these national security decisions might lack virtue. The significant burden of military ethics lies in this. “We unleash a torrent of sinister power if those who control the power to kill and maim are evil or morally unfit."(Toner, 1996, p.134). This is a particularly good instance of how valued these decisions are. Therefore, this paper will address the ethical dilemma that exists among leaders when they issue their directives in protecting their citizens and other parties. In Particular, this paper will highlight some of the main reasons that might contribute to leaders making decisions that might be seen to serve their interests despite disapproval from the majority of the people. The significance of this section is that, upon their realization, those in power will be able to follow cause in giving out their orders, which might end up saving a lot of lives. Moreover, it will help in negotiating for justice for the minority groups that their orders might influence. My interest in this topic is driven by the necessity to address the fact that despite leaders making decisions that seem in the nation's best interest, it is by far more harmful than doing good. For example, in the Rwandan genocide case, America sat back in restoring peace in that particular country, citing they were not being directly affected. The result was a massive bloodbath which would have been mitigated in the early periods had the U.S. armed forces decided to help. The president might justify using the taxpayers' money wisely, but in essence, it 3 was immoral for him to do so, given the number of people who lost their lives during the war. After the killing of George Floyd, protesters near the white house were dispersed upon the president's directives. These were people fighting for justice, yet the voice of the president did not agree with them. My view on the most appropriate ethical viewpoint should be the common good (Salton, 2020). This is because the rule for leaders should strive to ensure that those being affected directly get justice, like the case with the protestors. This should be the most important tool implemented in ensuring that leaders best address ethical issues and moral issues. In addition, they would be able to outscore the ethical bar upon making essential decisions that might balance many lives. For instance, in the Rwandan case, being morally and ethically driven towards the common good, the president might have taken another approach as far as the lives of the Rwandan citizens are taken into consideration. 4 References Salton, H. T. (2020). Sovereignty and the new executive authority: ethics, national security, and the rule of law. Toner, J. H. (1996). Gallant Atavism. The Military Ethic in an Age of Nihilism. AIR UNIV MAXWELL AFB AL AIRPOWER JOURNAL. 1 Outline: Ethical Dilemma Among Leaders Student Name College Subject Instructor Date 2 Outline: Ethical Dilemma Among Leaders I. Introduction a. Background, context of the topic: Ethical dilemmas exist in every organization and are typically solved by following an established code of conduct. It is a vital factor in any group as it helps promote peace and growth in any organization. It is a significant issue in the military force as it concerns the citizen's security at a national level. As such, they have a significant role as their decisions can either result in saving lives or losing them. The leaders who make the decisions are expected to have sound moral conduct and listen to the citizens' pleas. As such, they are expected to make decisions that are for the good of their people (Salton, 2020). b. Transition to thesis: This is not usually the case in most situations, as some leaders tend to make decisions that benefit their needs. Such decisions are devoid of virtue and concern for the greater good. Military ethics is critical as it involves the burden of taking care of other people's lives. Therefore, these decisions are critical. The following paper analyzes the ethical issues in military leadership and attempts to identify the reasons behind such poor decisions. It also aims to provide solutions to how the issues can be solved. c. Thesis statement: This paper aims to create an awareness of the military leadership's task and how the decisions they make influence our lives. II. Supporting Point 1: Several dilemmas affect military leadership: financial accountability, service member substance abuse, fraudulent use of government property and funds, and military values. a. Supporting details: These are some of the main issues that result in the making of poor decisions by military leaders. 3 Example 1: The main parties involved in these dilemmas are military leaders and the citizens. It is generally an entire population issue as the consequences of the decisions made affect every individual. However, the burden lies solely on the military leaders as they have to distinguish ethical dilemmas and solve them. They need to be equipped to make life-changing decisions for the greater good and benefit of the people. III. Supporting Point 2: My interest in this topic lies in the fact that more accidents have happened in the past couple of years due to poor decision-making skills. a. Supporting details: Many lives have been lost, and others have gotten away with murder and other serious criminal charges. It implies that there is a default in the military system in that it denies people a free and fair government. The decisions have been by far the most harmful as they have affected masses of people. Example 1: It begs the question of the U.S. government's duty to maintain civil justice in the country. It also begs how far they are willing to go to protect their country against wars. For instance, during the Nisour Square Massacre, a lot of Iraqis died. The decision by the U.S. government to bomb the Iraqis was unjustified in that it harmed every individual as much as they were blameless. Children were also harmed in the process. As much as this decision seemed like it was for the Nation's interests, it led to more harm than good. Example 2: It created tension between the two countries and never-ending war, resulting in countries living in fear throughout their day-to-day lives. Therefore, the government failed in protecting its people as it denied them the freedom to live freely, devoid of fear. The war's effects are still felt to date as many lives were lost from both countries. 4 IV. Supporting Point 3: The U.S. government's decisions might also lead to the restoration of peace or create wars between countries. a. Supporting details: For instance, the terror bombing of London led to war as it created more enemies. The use of drone strikes by different presidents in their eras was also harmful as it was aimed at killing people rather than seeking new ways to address their issues in harmony. Example 1: As much as it led to the destruction of the enemy, it also begs the question of how far the government is willing to go to protect its citizens. If it causes more harm than good, like in such scenarios, then it's best if they resorted to using different methods and approaches (Lucas, 2016). Example 2: When the country decides to deny another country help since the war does not directly affect them, it causes other effects in that the country may not receive future help from countries due to such decisions. V. Supporting Point 4: Ethical leaders should understand that it is immoral not to offer help to a country asking for support because they do not want any involvement. a. Supporting details: In the Rwandan genocide, if the U.S. government had accepted to assist the Rwandese, the genocide might not have happened. The effects of the genocide are still felt to date and continue to affect generations upon generations of people. The Iraqis also have trauma that they dealt with after their war with America. Example 1: It was courtesy of the U.S. and military leaders to choose a violent path to deal with their misunderstandings. Further, their process of seeking justice after the war was also unethical in that it involved violent means such as air force bombers who destroyed more lives and led to the destruction of the nation. Knowing that America is a 5 superpower and the most powerful country globally, they should be more vigilant in their decision-making skills and solve ethical dilemmas. It will avoid a blood bath and create good relations between them and other political and military leaders. VI. Conclusion a. Connection between the body and thesis statement: Some of the leading communities interested in this analysis are the political and military leaders and the societies concerned about knowing how these decisions impact their lives. b. Transition to closing thoughts: Countries that have suffered due to the war between them and the U.S. may also be relevant in this case as the analysis may help those countries understand how they were wrong and how they can solve the differences in a peaceful way. Understanding the effects of the decisions is critical to leaders making better decisions in the future that would otherwise involve no bloodshed and long-lasting solutions. c. Closing thoughts: In conclusion, military and political leaders need to make decisions while considering the more significant benefit and people's good. Failure to make ethical decisions and spend funds in the wrong ways leads to worse after-effects that may affect the involved countries in the future generations to come. 6 References Eckert, A. E. (2015). Outsourcing war: The just war tradition in the age of military privatization. Cornell University Press. Lowery, Z., & Spalding, F. (2016). The Rwandan genocide. The Rosen Publishing Group. Lucas, G. R. (2016). Military ethics: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. Salton, H. T. (2020). Sovereignty and the new executive authority: ethics, national security, and the rule of law. The bombing of London. (2007). SecEd, 2007(1). https://doi.org/10.12968/sece.2007.1.247 Criteria EXCELLENT GOOD 10 points The work’s theme/thesis statement is original, completely developed, clearly articulated, and coherently unites the content. It is located in the introduction paragraph and reiterated in the conclusion. 8 points The work’s theme/thesis statement is original and mostly developed, consistently used throughout the work. It is located in the introduction paragraph and somewhat reiterated in the conclusion. 7 points The work’s theme/thesis statement is acceptable, but elementary, occasionally used in the rest of the work. It is not clearly located in the introduction paragraph or reiterated in the conclusion. 30 points Analysis, Evaluation The ethical and Audience: evaluation work is built around a highly The ethical original, wellevaluation work constructed analysis, demonstrates original and effective with well informed analysis, evaluation, and highly significant and critical thinking. recommendations relevant to the The work is written appropriately for the intended national target audience and security community. addresses all Details and evidence assignment to support the ethical elements with and empirical analysis appropriate tone, (and the work’s 26 points The ethical evaluation work is built around an original, wellconstructed analysis, with informed and significant recommendations relevant to the intended national security community. Details and evidence to support the ethical and empirical analysis (and the 23 points The ethical evaluation work is built around an acceptably constructed analysis, with reasonable recommendations relevant to the intended national security community. Details and evidence to support the ethical Theme/Thesis: The work contains an appropriate, original, and coherent theme or thesis statement which is reinforced throughout the paper. AVERAGE NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 6 points The work’s theme/thesis statement is difficult to identify, unoriginal, and/or is not reinforced throughout the paper. It is not located in the introduction paragraph or reiterated in the conclusion. 19 points The ethical evaluation work is built around a poorly constructed analysis, with few recommendations relevant to the intended national security community. Details and evidence to support the ethical and empirical analysis (and the work’s conclusions) are only somewhat UNACCEPTABLE 5 points The work’s theme/thesis statement is not clearly identifiable, OR the work has no theme/thesis statement. NO SUBMISSION 0 points No submission at all. 18 points 0 points The ethical No evaluation work is submission at unclear, and not all. constructed properly with few or no recommendations relevant to the intended national security community. Details and evidence to support the ethical and rendering meaningful conclusions for the relevant national security community. Sources/Evidence: The work demonstrates the selection and use of an appropriate quantity and quality of sources, evidence, and/or relevant information for the assignment. conclusions) are highly relevant, accurate, and discussed critically through all of the work. work’s conclusions) are relevant, accurate, and discussed critically through much of the work. and empirical analysis (and the work’s conclusions) are mostly relevant and accurate, and discussed in some of the work, but require additional clarification. relevant and accurate, and discussed in only part of the work, either tangentially or almost missing entirely. empirical analysis (and the work’s conclusions) are not relevant or accurate, and discussed infrequently or missing entirely. 20 points The work uses an excellent selection of evidence from highquality sources, both primary/original and secondary. All sources are highquality, credible and relevant, fully supporting all assignment parameters in both quantity and quality. 17 points The work uses an acceptable selection of evidence from quality sources, both primary/original and secondary. Most sources are highquality, credible and relevant, supporting most assignment parameters in both quantity and quality. 15 points The work uses an adequate selection of evidence from quality sources, both primary/original and secondary. Many sources are of sufficient quality, credibility and relevance, but not all; support for assignment parameters in both quantity and quality is only adequate. 13 points The work uses an insufficient amount of evidence from quality sources, both primary/original and secondary. Many sources are of insufficient quality, credibility and relevance, or are otherwise inappropriate; support for assignment parameters in both quantity and quality is insufficient. 12 points No sources used in the work, OR all sources are inappropriate. 0 points No submission at all. Writing Skills: Grammar, spelling, and syntax are appropriate for college-level writing. Structure and Organization: The work has a wellcrafted structure and organization. Introduction, body, and concluding paragraphs reinforce and build upon the theme/thesis, and exhibit effective transitions. Length of the submission is appropriate. 10 points The work contains no errors in spelling or grammar. Word choice is highly professional and appropriate for the intended audience. 8 points The work contains a few spelling and/or grammatical errors. Word choice is professional and appropriate for the intended audience. 7 points The work contains several minor spelling and grammatical errors. Word choice is generally professional and appropriate with occasional use of informal language or terminology inappropriate for the audience. 6 points The work contains consistent errors in spelling and grammar. Word choice is marginally professional and appropriate with frequent use of informal language or terminology inappropriate for the audience. 5 points The major spelling and grammatical errors and choice of words within the work are unprofessional and limit the reader’s ability to follow ideas or thoughts. 0 points No submission at all. 10 points The work follows a clearly identified structure and organization, with fully articulated introduction, body, and concluding paragraphs. Transitions are appropriate and seamless between paragraphs. The work meets, or exceeds length requirements. 8 points The work is wellstructured and organized, with more than adequate introduction, body, and concluding paragraphs. Transitions are mostly appropriate and connect ideas between paragraphs. The work meets length requirements. 7 points The work shows an acceptable structure and organization, with adequate introduction, body, and concluding paragraphs. Transitions are somewhat appropriate in connecting ideas between paragraphs. The work meets, or approximates length requirements. 6 points The work shows a basic attempt to organize the material. It is difficult for the reader to differentiate between the introduction, body, and conclusion. Transitions do not clearly show the relationship between paragraphs. The work does not meet, or approximate length requirements. 5 points There is no clear organization between ideas and information. Transitions are missing or show no relationship to the theme/thesis. The work does not meet length requirements. 0 points No submission at all. APA Citations and Reference List: In-text citations and the reference list are formatted accurately and completely in APA style. Instructor Feedback: The student integrated Feedback from the Instructor on previous assignments to improve their work in the final paper. 10 points There are no errors in the in- text citations or reference list formatting. 8 points There are a few minor errors in the in-text citations or reference list formatting. 7 points There are some significant errors in the in- text citations or reference list formatting. 6 points There are several significant errors in in-text citations or reference list formatting. 5-0 points There are many errors in in-text citations or reference list formatting. 0 points No Submission at all. 10 points All or nearly all Instructor Feedback from prior assignment(s) was effectively integrated into the final paper. 8 points Many changes from Instructor Feedback were integrated into the final paper. A few other significant changes were expected based on feedback. 7 points Minor changes from Instructor Feedback were included in the final paper. More extensive changes were expected based on feedback. 6 points Only a few changes from Instructor Feedback were included in the final paper. Many more extensive changes were expected based on feedback. 5 points Few to no changes from Instructor Feedback were included in the final paper. 0 points No submission at all.