UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
PA 496L/596L
"Governance
and Security, and the Response to Terrorism"
(GOVSEC)
Fall Semester 2003
Section 1 Tues 1730--2000 McClelland 131
Professor Chris C. Demchak (Schl of PA
and Policy) McClelland 405GG
Cyberspace
Policy Research Group (CyPRG) www.u.arizona.edu/~demchak/
Office
Hours: TTH 1300-1400 (by appt T1500-1600) Tel:
621-7965
and by appointment TTH am and email email:
demchak@u.arizona.edu
Teaching Assistant:
Lei Zheng email: lei@eller.arizona.edu
Required Course
Materials:
Framework books
Tilly,
Charles. 1992. Coercion, Capital, and European States, Ad 990-1992 (Studies in
Social Discontinuity). London: Blackwell Publisher. (Reader available from
UA Copy Center Harvill 137 tel 621-7502 )
O'Connell,
Robert L. 1989. Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons and Aggression. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Adams,
James. 1998. The Next World War: Computers are the Weapons and the Front Line
is Everywhere. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Eberly,
Don E. 2000.The Essential Civil Society Reader. Lanham, Maryland: Roman Little
Field.
Kegley, Charles. 2003. The New Global Terrorism: Characteristics, Causes, Controls. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Additional readings (on reserve at SPAP
secretary desk or location TBD):
Bayley, David H. 1975. “The Police and Political Development in Europe”. In Tilly, Charles, ed. The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 328-379.
GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY:
Three additional scholarly books of your choice and my approval. Send me the list of your choices by the third week.
Course Description:
The fundamental purpose of this experimental course is to
provide students a framework for critically analyzing security issues under
historical and current conditions, and for assessing the likely effectiveness
of governance structures and operations responding to those challenges. It is intended to
be a survey course based on reading, writing, and discussion that is both
intriguing and challenging. The goal of this course is to develop the
ability to think systemically when faced with surprising future developments in
the nexus of governance and security.
Designed to be integrative, the course has six segments built around key readings. The first segment is a theoretical/historical segment framing the issue of security and governance (Tilly). The second is a historical overview of how security has been dealt with among states (O’Connell), and how individual security became delegated to police forces (Bayley) late in western evolution. In the third segment, we then look at current security challenges arising primarily from new technologies (Adams) and the state-centered responses. The fourth segment concerns emerging concepts of civil society, and whether the security goal is properly understood as civil global society (absence of violence) or as global civil society (a dominance of democratic norms). The fifth and longest segment (Kegley editor, various authors) deals directly with terrorism’s definition, actors, implications, and historical role. Finally in the sixth segment (various authors) we address the US plans for a Department of Homeland Security as a particular response to the terrorism security challenge. We will attempt to assess these plans given all the material about security and governance that has been read over the semester.
Each class meeting will have the following format. I will give a 20-30 minute summary lecture highlighting major points. Then students will break out into groups for 45 minutes of discussion on questions I will pose or in response to other exercise requirements. After a short break, we will come together as a class with each group’s spokesvictim reporting the results of the consultations for a general class discussion. The class will end with a 20-30 minute lecture introducing and offering guidelines for the next set of readings and the next week’s topic.
Major Course
Requirements:
Both graduate and undergraduate students must participate in a weekly online Caucus discussion based on the text readings, review an online article every other week (or as in syllabus), participate fully in class, and complete exams honorably. Graduate students must read three additional documents and critically review them along with several of the major works of the semester.
A. Display command of the required material by participating on the course computer conference on CAUCUS (PA496_596L) weekly. This requirement is worth in total 35 percent of the grade.
1. By the beginning of the second week of classes, each student will join Caucus for this course, the GovPub listserve (GOVPUB@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU), the email digest list of InfoWar .com (go to http://www.infowar.com/) and the free email sections of Nando Times, the Guardian Unlimited, and Defense News (Use google.com to find the current URLs).
2. Before 10 pm every Monday night, each student will have read the readings and submit in a single consolidated entry to Caucus: a 1-2 paragraph identifying what surprised you about each bracketed reading and how that bracketed reading relates to the overall framework of the course. This is 20% of your grade.
3. Before 10 pm Monday night ONLY as directed in the syllabus, each student will also go online to find an article that relates to the text we are finishing that week. The student will submit in Caucus for that week a second entry labeled “Article”. This entry will be 1-2 paragraphs, giving the title, author, URL, date/journal of the article plus a discussion of how this article relates to the text of the week. This is 15% of your grade.
4. Important NOTES:
-- This means the normal weekly entry will be from 3-8 short paragraphs according to what is bracketed in the syllabus. Plus each student will have an additional entry on an article roughly every other week.
--- BE SURE to compose these entries OFFLINE and cut and paste them into Caucus!!!
5. I will not participate directly in the conference but I will read each week’s conference. Only at the end of the semester will I download and evaluate all the submissions from each student for both frequency and quality. I will not be able to tell you how many times you have contributed until the cumulative rollup at the end of the semester.
B. Participate
in Midterm (15 percent) and Final (25 percent) exams., for a total of 40 percent of the grade.
Undergraduates
1. Midterm will be a written essay conducted in the final hour of class as shown in the syllabus. It will focus on the text readings and course discussions.
2. Final exam will be a limited time take home essay due at the final meeting of the class. It will involve both the readings of the course AND the articles each student has provided over the semester.
3. Note carefully my strict policy on plagiarization. The final exam submission must be provided in print AND in electronic form on a virus-free disk as well in order to run a plagiarization program.
Graduate students
1. Participate in both Midterm and Final exams.
2. In addition to the Midterm exam, each graduate student will provide a short (max 4 pages) document critique on two of the following major texts: Tilly, O’Connell, Eberly.
3. In addition to the Final exam, each graduate student will provide an integrated document critique of the three additional texts chosen as indicated above.
4. The critique grades will be rolled into each exam grade, respectively. See format at the end of the syllabus.
5. Note carefully my strict policy on plagiarization. All literature review submissions must be provided to me electronically by email in order to be able to run a plagiarization program if it seems desirable.
C. Display command of the required material by participating as required in class. This is 25 percent of the grade.
1. In general, roll will be taken.
2. Up to a two grade point penalties may be assessed for a pattern of poor participation, especially if demonstrated by a limited ability to recall readings and/or discuss individual articles in class.
3. You are responsible for both knowing your reading for the week and being familiar with the articles uploaded by your colleagues.
4. To achieve a passing grade, you must fully participate in class discussion and have adequately participated in the computer conference in at least 60 percent of conference sessions.
At the end of the
syllabus is the grading scheme used for all evaluations of written work and
participation.
Reading Assignments:
(Note: all Caucus assignments must be in by 2200 the
Monday before class AND bring a copy or your Caucus material to all class meetings.
26 Aug Week 1 Framework
Tuesday: Introduction to Pedagogic goals, Syllabus, Computer Caucus, Task Forces, Conduct of class, Web research, Admin; Lecture on Integrating Model of the Search for Control in Governance and Security (introducing Theory of Latitude and Control and Tilly readings)
You must have a UA CCIT account to get access to this site. Use a browser to go to the CAUCUS home site http://caucus.arizona.edu/ and “join” our conference (Pa496_596L). You will submit material required by 2200 the night before the assigned class. Note that each week has a topic that is the week number. Put the week number in the subject heading of all your Caucus entries. Add the word “Article” to the subject if it is the second submission covering the article you have found.
Late
entries are accepted only on a case by case basis and, without emergency
documentation, only given partial credit. See the in-depth instructions in
Requirements above. After the third week of the semester, our conference will
NOT be on the list of conferences to click (it will be unlisted).
NOTE:
Do NOT submit CAUCUS submissions as attachments! Always write them offline and paste
them into the Caucus site.
2 SEP Week 2 Tilly – Capital (Cities) & Coercion (States) Creates Modern Security System
Tuesday: Class discussion
Reading:
Tilly: [chap 1], [chap 2], [chap3] (READER found in UA Harvill Copy CTR)
Computer Conference (Caucus) Question(s):
For each bracketed set of
readings, submit to Caucus a paragraph describing what surprised you in this
reading and how that surprising information relates to the overall framework of
the course.
In addition, in a second
Caucus submission entitled “Article”, each student will give URL, title, and
source journal/date for one online article on the general topic of the book we
have just read, and then provide a short comment on how this article expands or
complements the information or arguments in the book. Bring a copy of the article and what you wrote to class. You may accidentally duplicate another
student’s article choice only once over the semester. On the second occasion, you will not get
credit for the submission if you are the student with the later entry.
9 SEP Week 3 O’Connell – History of State against State Use of Coercion
Tuesday: Class discussion
Reading:
O’Connell:
[chap 1], [chap 2-3], [chap 4-5], [chap 6-7], [chap 8], [chap 9]
Computer Conference (Caucus) Question(s):
For each bracketed set of
readings, submit to Caucus a paragraph describing what surprised you in this reading
and how that surprising information relates to the overall framework of the
course.
16 SEP Week 4 O’Connell (continued)
Tuesday:
Class discussion
Reading:
O’Connell: [chap 10], [chap 11], [chap 12-13], [chap 14], [chap 15], [chap 16], article
Computer Conference (Caucus) Question(s):
See Week 2 for instructions.
23 SEP Week 5 Applying Framework of Concept`+ Capital or Coercion 10/
Tuesday: Class discussion or visiting Speaker (TBD
Reading:
Find two current articles relevant to the framework
Computer Conference (Caucus) Question(s):
See Week 2 for
instructions.
30 SEP Week 6 Bayley – Police Forces Possible when Individuals Delegate Security to States
Tuesday: Class discussion
Reading:
Bayley [entire chapter] on reserve in SPAP MCCL 405, find article
Computer Conference (Caucus) Question(s):
See Week 2 for
instructions.
7 OCT Week 7 Adams – Modern Changes in State Security Evolutionary Paths
Tuesday: Class discussion
Reading:
Adams: [intro, chaps 1-3], [chaps 4-5], [chaps 6-7], [chaps 8-10]
Computer Conference (Caucus) Question(s):
See Week 3 for
instructions.
14 OCT Week 8 Adams (continued)
Tuesday: Class discussion
Reading:
Adams: [chap 11-13], [chaps 14-15], [chap 16], [chaps 17-18], [chap 19 thru p. 313], find an article
Computer Conference (Caucus) Question(s):
See Week 2 for
instructions.
21 OCT Week 9 Eberly – Civil Global Society or Global Civil Society
Tuesday: Class discussion
Reading:
Eberly: [chap 1], [chap 2], [chap 4], [chaps 5-6], [chaps 8-9], [chap 10]
Computer Conference (Caucus) Question(s):
See Week 3 for
instructions.
28 OCT
Week 10 Eberly (continued)
[Midterm]
Tuesday: Class discussion [Midterm last hour of class]
Reading:
Eberly: [chap 13], [chap 16], [chap 17], find an article
Computer Conference (Caucus) Question(s):
See Week 2 for
instructions.
4 NOV Week 11 Terrorism Challenge Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow
Tuesday: Class discussion
Reading:
TBD
Computer Conference (Caucus) Question(s):
See Week 3 for
instructions.
11 NOV Week 12 Terrorism (continued)
Tuesday: No Class discussion –Veterans Day -
Reading:
Students will go to http://www.brookings.org/dybdocroot/terrorism/ and review the following:
Under the Commentary section, read: [“Listen to What Moderate Muslims Say”]
Under the Resources, read or click through [“Past Terrorist Incidents”], [“Bioterrorism in America”], [“Chronology”], [“Documents”], “Links”, “Maps”], [“Terrorism and the Law”]
Computer Conference (Caucus) Question(s):
See Week 2 for
instructions.
18 NOV Week 13
Terrorism (continued)
Tuesday: Class discussion[ccd1]
Reading:
Students will find three
online articles on terrorism: one concerning how to combat it in general, one
concerning how to find terrorists anywhere in the world, and one concerning
antiterrorist efforts in the US in particular.
Post information on all three articles along with your commentary –
bring them to class.
Computer Conference (Caucus) Question(s):
See Week 2 for instructions.
25 NOV Week 14 Readings Online: Homeland Security Debate
Tuesday: Class discussion
Reading:
Find three articles, one
each on the mission of the Department of Homeland Security, one on the
structure of DHS, and one on the ability to gather intelligence on terrorists
(or on DHS databases). These articles cannot be largely the same as any other
student; if they are coincidentally, your comments have to differ substantially
indicating your own thinking and work.
Computer Conference (Caucus) Question(s):
Submit
a paragraph comment on each article
to Caucus. See Week 2 for instructions.
2 DEC Week 15 Readings Online (Final exam instructions – Due next Monday 4 pm)
Tuesday: Class discussion
Reading:
Find three articles on the
future defense against terrorism strategy, both at home and abroad, that the US
should pursue. These may be opinion
pieces in the New York Times or equivalent national level journal.
Computer Conference (Caucus) Question(s):
See Week 3 for
instructions.
9 DEC Week 16 Course Review on Tuesday and possible participation grade return
Final exam (and graduate students’
final literature critiques) to be submitted in paper and on a disk in one
consolidated Word file entitled with
your name as in "lastname_496_596f03" on Monday 4 pm MCCL 405GG
Sign in both paper and disk.
Be sure to run a virus scanner on the
diskette after copying the file.
Have no other files on the diskette. Files will be run through a plagiarization
detection program. See policy on
plagiarization in Grading section of syllabus.
Also be sure to provide contact a telephone
number on the diskette in case of a problem reading it.
No
extensions are granted without an emergency situation.
GRADING STANDARDS FOR ALL
REQUIREMENTS including participation
Paper standards are in italics.
MASTERY
A Dominates the material
[Good Thesis Statement, Good Argument, Structured well, Written well]
A+ Beyond the expectations of the course or specific requirement
A- Demonstrates some mastery of the material across most categories.
PROFICIENCY
B Demonstrates a good understanding
[Good Thesis Statement, Acceptable Argument (few fallacies, mostly
clear),Structured well, generally written well]
B+ Excellent Performance in several categories
B- Demonstrates aptitude for the subject
PASSING
C Demonstrates passable but shallow understanding:
[Passable Thesis Statement,
barely acceptable argument (fallacies, unclear), Structured generally, grammatically
passable]
C+ Can build on this foundation
C- Limited and short-lived understanding
POOR
D Demonstrates extremely shallow understanding
[Attempt at a thesis statement, a story or history rather than
argument, Some evident structure, grammatically poor]
E (FAILING) Demonstrates no effort or violates major requirements
[No thesis + Garbled
story, embarrassingly poorly written, plagiarization or fraud in
authorship, especially using quotes that are not labeled as direct
quotes.] If work is plagiarized in any way, the instructor reserves the right
to apply a failing grade to the submission or the course, according to the
severity of the violation. In addition,
a formal consequence in accordance with the UA and Eller Integrity Codes may be
pursued.
NOTES:
Grades may be adjusted for contribution using peer-group and/or self-evaluations and the professor's judgment if the situation warrants.
"Domination" of the material includes displaying insight well beyond the mere accumulation of facts.
For the top grade, any assignments must be well organized, well cited, and comprehensive.
The participation grade is based on the intellectual contribution to the class and computer discussion in terms of clarification, insight, stimulation, original ideas, and attendance in the course. A passing grade of "D" requires at least 60 percent regular attendance and regular contribution to the class discussion. Attending all lessons but saying nothing merits a failing participation evaluation. Absence or failure to be prepared when your name is called for article presentation merits up to a 10 percent penalty in in-class participation evaluation.
Creativity merits reward if it demonstrates sophisticated insights and command of the material...up to one grade point per requirement.
Grade adjustments: The University of Arizona does not allow me to give plus or minus final grades although I prefer to grade with them in the course. Your final grade will be altered according to the full grade to which your calculated final grade is closest. Half point grades will be moved up; quarter point grades down. Those falling between X.30 and X.50 will be evaluated individually to see if moving up is justified on the basis of other demonstrated work.
No extensions will be permitted unless there is a demonstrable emergency and you have arranged the extension in advance.
Final
notes on academic integrity and formal definitions of misconduct with
consequences:
Academic Dishonesty
Academic Dishonesty occurs
whenever any action or attempted action is pursued that creates an unfair
academic advantage or disadvantage for you and/or any member or members of the
academic community. All forms of academic dishonesty are subject to sanctions
under the Code of Academic Integrity. Sanctions include: written warning,
reduction in grade for work involved, disciplinary probation, loss of credit
for work involved, failing grade in the course, suspension, and/or expulsion.
Various forms of academic dishonesty include, but are not limited to cheating,
fabrication, facilitating academic dishonesty, and/or plagiarism.
Academic Misconduct
Academic Misconduct is defined as any behaviors not conforming to
prevailing standards or rules within the academic community. All forms of
academic misconduct are subject to sanctions under the Code of Conduct.
Sanctions include: classroom conduct, interim action, program/support,
organizational sanctions, restricted access to university property,
administrative hold, warning, probation, suspension, and/or expulsion. Various
forms of academic misconduct include, but are not limited to disruptive
behavior, threatening behavior, and/or the theft or damage of University
property.
For more specific examples of academic dishonesty, academic misconduct, and how
to avoid such behaviors, please visit the following website: http://ugrad.eller.arizona.edu/academic_integrity/student_resource_guide
Basics of a Document Critique to be used in the additional
readings
(Graduate Students ONLY)
A
critique is intended to describe and analyze a piece of written work. It does the following things: lays out the
purpose of the work (i.e., why was this piece under review written and,
sometimes, why the critique was written as well), assesses how that purpose was
pursued, and then analyzes what we can learn from the piece.
A
critique answers the following questions (which can be used as subheadings
after the introduction in reviews that are longer than, say, 3 pages):
- What is the behavior
being explained in this piece of literature?
- What is the empirical
evidence for this behavior?
- What are the existing
explanations for this behavior?
- What are the author’s explanations
in the work under review?
- How well does the
author connect the offered explanation(s) with the empirical evidence
offered in this work and/or available elsewhere?
- What other questions does this work stimulate?