Political
Science 385
International
Security
Summer 2021
Bill Newmann
This course counts for the International
Relations concentration in the POLI major
Office Hours: This is an online course, so there will be no office hours. However, e-mail as often as you like (wnewmann@vcu.edu). We can also set up zoom appointments; just ask.
Here is a link to my home page with links to other syllabi: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~wnewmann/index.htm
Introduction:
This course is an online course. You’ll read five books and write five analytical reviews. All papers should be submitted through regular old e-mail or through Canvas email. All papers will be returned with comments through e-mail as well. There will be no class meetings. A full assignment-by-assignment schedule is at the end of the syllabus.
This course is an introduction to some of the basic concepts in international security. The Browning book is your “textbook” in that sense. It traces the definition of international security and how it has evolved during the 20th and 21st centuries. Your readings take you through that evolution. Traditional international security focused on the interactions between nation-states – great power rivalry, war, the fate of weak states trying to navigate between the great powers, and the impact of nuclear weapons and other technologies (Browning Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4; and the Mearsheimer and Jervis books). When the cold war ended, many scholars and policy makers argued that rivalries between nation-states had become a thing of the past, but wars within nation-states seemed to be breaking out all over the world. Ethnic conflict within nation-states emerged as a new threat to international peace and security (Browning Chapter 5). As it turns out, rivalries between nation-states never ended, but ethnic conflict had now become a new (really renewed) problem in addition to great power conflict. By the turn of the century scholars and policy makers were arguing that a set of new issues were threatening international peace and security – the impact that war, poverty, rapid economic change, migration, infectious disease, and unstable or dictatorial government had on the average person and on local communities. The new concept was called human security, and it shifted the focus of international security away from nation-states and onto individuals (Browning Chapters 6 and 8). Climate change has been seen by scholars as the biggest threat to international security, the problem that will impact everyone and effect every aspect of our lives in the future (Browning Chapter 7 and Klare). In the aftermath of the wide expansion of terrorism in the 1990s and 21st century, the role of subnational groups and non-state actors has come into focus. Organizations – groups of people with an interest in changing the world and using violence to do it – now have global reach and a significant impact on international security (Browning Chapter 9). Social media has accelerated the ability of violent and non-violent non-state actors (organizations) to impact international security (Cronin). For more on these ideas, see the summary descriptions of each book below. And that’s where we are today.
I mentioned that each book will be an analytical review. What does that mean? There is a lot of detail on that below, but here is the short version.
§ For the Browning book: This book is a survey of concepts in international security or it can be seen as a history of the discipline. You can approach it any way you want, but here is a good way to think about it. There are traditional views of thinking about international security and there are newer approaches. Are the newer approaches valid ways to think about international security or are they muddying the concept of security so badly that almost anything is now considered a threat to international security? Another way of saying the same thing is this: should international security focus only on the interactions between nation-states and not examine the way individuals/people are impacted by world events? Make an argument.
§ For all the other books: The author is making an argument. What do you think? Half the paper should summarize the author’s argument and half the paper should be your response. I’ve tried to pick books that have a clear and forceful argument.
§ There is a lot of detail about how to do this below.
Your initial papers may be rocky, but I am looking for your effort and indications that you are learning. Early difficulty will be overshadowed by the quality of your papers at the end of the course. Your grade will reflect the improvement. In other words, put the grade aspect aside for the moment and learn. If you learn something, you will ultimately be happy with your grades. What you have learned and your level of effort will be reflected in your final grade. So, don’t be discouraged if your early grades aren’t what you had hoped.
Learning Outcomes
1.
Students will achieve comprehension of and be able to
assess the theoretical paradigms of international relations and international
security, particularly realism, idealism/liberalism, and constructivism
2.
Students
will be able to identify and evaluate the challenges of traditional
international security, such as great power rivalry, the use of force,
intervention as a tool of foreign policy, the impact of technological change, and
the way in which great power conflict has shaped the international system.
3. Students will be able to identify and
evaluate the challenges of modern international security, such as the threats
of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, human rights, and ethnic
conflict
4. Students will be able to evaluate
the differences between traditional and modern views of international security.
5. Students will be able to evaluate
the national and international strategies designed to deal with international
security challenges
6. Students will demonstrate the
ability to review seminal works on international security, and analyze these
works in short papers.
The Books
The following books are available at the Virginia Book Company (Franklin and Shafer St.), the VCU Bookstore, and Bookholders. Some will be on reserve at Cabell Library circulation desk (as indicated below). They will be on three day reserve; there is one complication for that. Library policy is that once the books are taken out for reserve, they can’t be used again for two days. It’s a virus precaution.
·
Christopher S. Browning. International
Security: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2013)
978-0199668533. On reserve: JZ5588 .B78 2013
· John Mearsheimer. The Tragedy of Great Power Relations, Updated edition (NY: WW Norton, 2014) 978-0393349276. On reserve: D397 .M38 2014
· Robert Jervis. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989) 978-0801495656. On reserve: U263 .J47 1989
The Browning book traces the evolution of international security studies from its focus on great power relations to more modern issues such as human security and climate change. It serves as the introduction to the class and to the key concepts of international security.
The Mearsheimer book is a classic, one of the seminal texts about great power politics and rivalries between nations. It's from the dominant realist paradigm -- international politics is about power. Period. Mearsheimer’s realism is called offensive realism -- great powers don’t just compete with each other; they strive for hegemony, working to maximize their power and expand their advantage over every other state. As you may guess, this analysis suggests that great powers are aggressive by definition and prone to conflict. This stands in sharp contrast to defensive realism, which argues that great powers just want to survive; they are more likely to seek stability and peace; they’ll choose to avoid war. Mearsheimer looks at great power conflict for the past few centuries in light of his theory and speculates on the 21st century potential for conflict as China gains more power in the 21st century.
The Jervis book examines the impact of nuclear weapons on international security. It is also a classic. It was written during the cold war, which gives it the perspective of the real possibility that the US and USSR might annihilate each other off the planet with nuclear weapons at any moment. Jervis’ argument is that nuclear weapons have fundamentally changed the nature of war and therefore great power relations. Nuclear war cannot be won, and therefore it will not be fought; decision makers are rational and will not choose to fight a nuclear war. Rivalries between great powers will continue, but there is an upper limit to the antagonism. Everyone understands that nuclear war means the end of all things. Jervis’ essential argument is that the most horrific weapons created in the 20th century will lead to a relatively peaceful world. The idea stands in contrast to theories suggesting nuclear weapons are like any other weapons; they can be used for political advantage and limited nuclear war (the selective use of nuclear strikes against military and civilian targets) can lead to victory in a great power war.
The Klare book is an interesting one. It looks at the US Department of Defense (DOD), the institution that has been tasked with preparing the US for great power politics and for using force in the service of US national interests. Surprisingly, perhaps, the DOD often argues that climate change is the biggest threat to US national security in the long run. There are many who believe that climate change not only isn’t real, but even if it is real, it is irrelevant. Almost none of these skeptics have science degrees or have ever studied climate issues first hand. If you drive up 95 North, then continue North on 395, you will get to the Pentagon, the building that houses the US Department of Defense. There you will find a group of people who see climate change as a huge challenge, a challenge at the core of international security in the 21st century.
The Cronin book examines the way technology has shifted the nature of power and the shape of international politics. Computers, the internet, and social media have broken the monopoly that states had on the use of force and the ability to set the nature of the debate in both domestic and international politics. Great powers may think they are in a rivalry with each other, but the people of the world, whether activists on social media, or protesters in a public square, or terrorists preparing for an attack, will have a lot to say about how those rivalries play out. There’s a ton here and no need to give any more of a summary than that. In general, though, if you get a chance, read everything Cronin writes.
The schedule for the class is at the end of the syllabus.
Basic
Requirements
·
Papers
You will be writing five papers.
o
The first on the Browning book should be 3 full
pages at minimum (3-4 pages is the target, but more is fine if you’re having
fun).
o
The rest have should be 5 full pages at minimum
(5-6 pages is the target. More than five
full pages is no problem. I’ll read as much as you want to write; if you are
very interested in a subject and want to play around with the ideas for more
than five pages, then I am very happy; enjoy yourself and I will enjoy your
enthusiasm and ideas). But fewer than five full pages would lead to a
significant point deduction.
· Deadlines
o You’ll have about a week to write the first paper; it’s a shorter book and a shorter paper. For the rest you’ll have between 10 and 12 days.
o All papers are to be submitted over email at midnight of the date the paper is due, so if the paper is due June 17, that means midnight June 17 as June 17 becomes June 18. These are soft deadlines, which means you have wiggle room. Shoot for midnight and if you email it to me in the middle of the night, it’s not a problem. But if it comes after about 6:00 AM the next day, then it will be late.
o Late penalties are ten points per day.
o Of course, if you’re dealing with some medical or family/personal crisis, talk to me. In that case, I’ll give you an extension.
o
Specific deadlines are in the schedule below.
· Margins, Spacing, Font Papers should be doubled-spaced with one-inch margins, and 11 or 12 point font. Shorter pages with wide margins and large print size font will be penalized.
· My Comments I will make comments on your paper and email that version back to you. If you have questions, we can email back and forth as often as you like or set up a zoom. I will try to mark up your papers pretty heavily with grammar, substance, and devil’s advocacy, but the grade will reflect the substance.
o I will get your papers back to you before the next paper is due, so that you can use my comments to improve your next paper.
·
Revision You’ll be required to
rewrite one of your papers based on my comments. This is a requirement, but it
is also an opportunity. If you’re unhappy with a grade, you get the chance to
fix a paper. Any one of the papers can be chosen for a rewrite except the last
paper. Use my comments on the paper to
rework the paper and improve your grade. Also, there is a nice loophole built
in here. Let’s say you got swamped with work from other classes or a job you
have. You can’t get the paper in on time. Maybe you need two more days. I can’t
give you an extension unless its health or family/personal, but if you hand in
half a paper or even a sentence that says “here is my paper,” that can be the
paper you rewrite. Rewrites are due the
same day as the final paper, but you can turn them in at any time you like.
·
Grades We’re
still dealing with a once in a century health crisis, so I’m building some
wiggle room into the class. It is, after all, a 15 week course squeezed into 8
weeks. First, you get a revision of one
paper; that’s nice. Also, I’m leaving a
10% bonus for your grade. That 10% score will be based on the highest grade you
receive on any paper in the class. If your highest grade is a 92 on paper four,
for example, then your 10% bonus is 10% at 92.
The percentages for each paper are as follows.
o Paper One: 10%
o Paper Two: 20%
o Paper Three: 20%
o Paper Four: 20%
o Paper Five: 20%
o Bonus: 10%
o How to calculate your grade: Use the percentages from above. So, if you received the following grades, you would calculate your grades in the following manner:
·
Grading scale I use a typical
scale: A = 90-100; B = 80-89; C = 70-79; D = 55-69. Borderline grades are
considered in the following manner.
o
If
your grade is 69.5, 79.5, or 89.5 or higher, then you may be a candidate for a
round up to the higher grade (Notice those numbers in the sentence; do not ask
for a higher grade if your average is a 68 or 78 or 88 or lower; those are not
borderline averages).
o
You
may become a candidate if your grades are borderline and if your grades have
been going up during the semester.
o
That
means that if you are borderline, but your last exam is lower than the previous
exams (you are between a B and C, but your third exam is a C for example), you
will probably get the lower grade.
o
If
you are borderline, and your last exam is higher than the previous exams (you
are between a B and C, but your third exam is a B), you will probably get the
higher grade.
o
Another
factor I consider is the typical grade you receive. Let’s say we have four
grades for the class and three are grades of B and one is a C (bad day) and
your average is a 79.6, you are a candidate for receiving a B
o
There
is no extra credit for this class.
Please do not ask.
The Papers
I base the grade on several things:
1. Introductory paragraph
2. Organization of the paper
3. Analysis of the author’s argument
4. Command of the supporting evidence the author introduces
5. Your argument and ideas
In your paper, please do not simply summarize the book. Your paper should be 50% summary and 50% your ideas – critical comments on the author’s ideas and argument. When I say critical, I don’t mean that you have to disagree with the author. I mean that you should assess the author’s argument in terms of:
1. Consistency (are there big contradictions in the author’s argument?)
2. Logic (does the argument make sense to you?),
3. Supporting evidence (does the author’s evidence support the theory?)
4. Accuracy (does the author’s argument seem realistic given what you know about the world. If so, why? If not, why not?)
5. Focus on the concepts and ideas, not on the writing style
Be creative. If you want to redesign the author’s theories and arguments, go ahead. What are your ideas on the subject? What is the author missing? Where does the argument miss the point? What are the logical conclusions of the author’s arguments and your ideas?
On Writing a
Good Analytical Paper
For example, someone might say "China is an expansionist nation because it is going to invade Taiwan." Challenge that idea; analyze it. Ask and answer some questions. In this case the author’s conclusion is that China is expansionist. The author’s evidence is that China will eventually invade Taiwan. Is it valid to prove a point using as evidence something that has not yet happened? Can someone say "I know that you are hungry because I believe that you will eat soon?" Isn't that simply hypothetical? If China hasn't invaded Taiwan, but the author believes it will, then the entire argument is based not on what China is or has done, but on what the author perceives about China. Have we learned anything about China? No, but we have learned something about the author. (I'm using an example taken from an op-ed piece in the Washington Post from 1997, which used this exact logic.) Now, you may believe that China is an expansionist power, but the author made a poor argument. So, you've got to make the argument stronger. If the author is convinced that China will invade Taiwan because China is building missile batteries along its eastern coast, buying equipment for amphibious landings, practicing amphibious landings, holding military exercises near Taiwan that simulate an invasion of an island, and saying “we will invade Taiwan” then the author has a better argument. What have we done here? We’ve done some basic social science analysis. We've challenged the author's argument, examined his cause and effect logic, and revealed his assumptions.
The introduction of your paper
(Important!!!) This is the difference between an “A” and a “B”!
Writing for social science, in particular Political Science, is different from other types of writing. It is absolutely crucial that you make sure that the reader of your paper knows a few things all within the first couple of paragraphs of the paper. Here are the three key things the reader must know: (1) What is the author’s main argument? (2) What is your view of that argument? (3) How are you going to go about supporting your argument? In other words, these first paragraphs or first paragraph should provide your reader with a "road map" that explains exactly what you will say during the paper. This is not as difficult as it sounds. Basically, what you need to do is write the outline you have for your paper in complete sentences in the first few paragraphs of the paper. This is different from journalism, or history, or magazine writing, but it is the way we do it in Political Science. The reader should know what you are going to say by the end of the introduction. It flows from the nature of government where your boss is a busy governmental official and has about two minutes of time to give to the five weeks of work you’ve been doing on some issue. For instance, let’s say your boss is the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and the DNI has asked you to write an analysis of whether Iran has nuclear weapons. The DNI needs a quick summary of your answer that can be digested in about five minutes because the DNI will be presenting that answer to the President of the US who will give the DNI about two minutes of his time. Importantly, the DNI will read your first paragraph and it better answer these questions: Does Iran have nuclear weapons or not? If so, for how long have they had them, and what will they do with those weapons? If not, why not, and will they develop them in the future? The answers to those questions cannot be on page five of the paper. If they are, the DNI is unlikely to ask you to write any more papers, and you might actually be looking for new employment soon. The style needs to be very clear and concise and summarize everything in those first few paragraphs. In short, if Political Science scholars wrote mystery novels, the first sentence of the book would be: “The butler did it.” This is why political scientists don’t write mystery novels.
Here is an example of what I think is a good introduction to an analytical paper. This is a sample intro paragraph for an analysis of Fareed Zakaria’s book From Wealth to Power. Notice how it summarizes Zakaria’s ideas then adds the ideas of the paper’s author.
In From Wealth to Power Fareed Zakaria examines what causes wealthy nations to become “great powers” with large militaries and global foreign policy ambitions. Historically, some nations translate their wealth into power, while others do not. The reasons why nations make this transition is crucial – in almost all historical cases in which wealthy nations become militarily powerful the result is international conflict and/or war. Though most analysts say that the transition from wealth to power and ambition is inevitable, Zakaria argues that the key ingredient in a nation’s rise to global power lies within the domestic political system. When a nation’s government becomes strong, ready to use the nation’s resources for political ends at home, it also becomes ready to harness the nation’s resources to achieve political goals abroad. His case study of the lag between US wealth (mid-19th century) and US ambition (late 19th century) provides an excellent argument of how the strength of the US government lagged behind the growth of its economy. Zakaria, however, has discounted two other important state-level factors that play a role in this transition: national ideology and historical legacy. First, some ideologies are more aggressive than others and will shape the way a nation deals with the rest of the world. Second, some nations have a historical legacies that deeply influence its foreign policy: Russian insecurity, the US sense of international mission, or China’s sense of regional dominance. Adding these variables into an assessment of a nation’s potential rise to power brings a more accurate vision of what translates wealth to power. This paper will first examine Zakaria’s argument then discuss the importance of national ideology and historical legacy. A conclusion considers the shape of the 21st century, speculating on the wealthy nations that will seek to increase their power in the international system. Ironically, this analysis suggests that the even as the US declines in relative wealth, its ability to use national resources, its ideology, and its historical legacy will lead it to fight – politically and even militarily – to maintain its leadership role.
You could construct an outline of your paper, an outline that could be used to develop headings and subheadings in the paper:
1. Introduction
2. Zakaria: Domestic Ability to Use Resources for Foreign Policy Goals
3. The Missing Variables (these are your ideas)
1. National ideology
2. Historical Legacy
4. Conclusions: US Hegemony: Same Ambition, Less Wealth
The key here is that by the end of the first paragraph, I know what you will write about. I know what your analysis will be. I know your conclusions.
Citations
You don’t need to do any research for the papers or use any sources except the assigned books. You should, however, cite information/ideas from the books. Do that using any style you like (parenthetical references, footnotes or endnotes). If you have questions about that, let me know.
Quotes
Avoid quoting the authors. These are short papers. Lots of quotes will take away from your writing and simply clutter up the paper. Often, students will take the key passages of a book or article and cut and paste it, rather than rewriting it in their own words (paraphrasing) then citing the source of the idea. This habit is a mistake for several reasons. First, no professor really wants to know if you can cut and paste, so it’s not a skill you should practice. Second, when you write something in your own words, you really begin to understand it because you have to filter it through your thinking. Third, the professor is grading you on your ideas, how well you understand the author’s argument and how well you can analyze it. If you cut and paste the author’s key points, the professor doesn’t know if you understand it or only if you know how to cut and paste. In general, there really is no need to quote scholars or journalist in short papers. Quotes are important only if the exact words matter. In that case, quoting official documents or participants in an event is relevant. Otherwise, your words are better.
1.
Subject and Verb. Make sure you
have a subject and verb in every sentence. (You would be surprised how many
important journals and books allow non-sentence sentences). This is
non-fiction, not fiction. You need to observe the basic rules of grammar.
3. Back up. WHEN YOU TYPE YOUR PAPER ON A COMPUTER MAKE SURE YOU SAVE IT OFTEN, ESPECIALLY IF YOU USE A UNIVERSITY COMPUTER OR YOU SWITCH COMPUTERS. Here’s the trick I use. Whenever I write, I back up and save to a thumb drive, but at the end of the day, I email myself the file of what I was working on. Use the email system of the university as your cloud account.
4. The use of “I”. Try to avoid using “I” in non-fiction. Instead of “I will discuss three problems…” say “This essay addresses three problems…” Instead of saying “I agree” or “I disagree”, try something like this: “Mearsheimer’s argument is solid for three reasons…” (those three reasons are your argument/analysis). Or “Mearsheimer’s argument has three major weaknesses…”
5. Introducing the book. I see this a lot, and you should try to avoid it. I was an English major when I entered college and if you do this in your paper, I will literally break out in hives. Students might begin their paper with a sentence like this: “In Audrey Kurth Cronin’s book Power to the People, she explains the growing ability for non-state actors to use social media to influence nation-states.” The problem is that the sentence refers to the author twice: by name and then as “she”. That’s awkward; it’s two subjects for the sentence. How about this: “In Power to the People, Audrey Kurth Cronin explains the growing ability for non-state actors to use social media to influence nation-states.” Much better. I don’t have hives.
6. The use of a semicolon. Semicolons connect two complete sentences that are related to each other. For example: “I went to the pizzeria to get a pie; it was closed.” You could also write them as two separate sentences if you wanted. The following would be an incorrect use of a semicolon: “I had six very tasty pizzas last week; except for that crappy one from the big chain store.” That should be a comma, not a semicolon. The test is this: If the two sentences you are connecting with a semicolon could stand alone as complete sentences, then use a semicolon. It becomes obvious: “Except for that crappy one from the big chain store” is not a sentence.
7. The use of “however”. This trips everyone up. It’s a bit similar to semicolons. “I went to the pizzeria; however, when I got there, it was closed.” Notice the semicolon, not the comma. That’s because “When I got there, it was closed” could be a complete sentence by itself. Also, this sentence is like the use of a semicolon. You are connecting two complete sentences. In this case, you’re connecting two sentences that are related, but related in a very specific way. The second sentence is adding the “however” to show a different expectation than the first sentence implies. The first sentence implies you were going to eat pizza. The second sentence says you didn’t. On the other hand, look at this example: “I went to the pizzeria. Upon arriving, however, I found out it was closed.” The “however” is surrounded by commas. That’s because “upon arriving” is not a sentence by itself. Here’s another aspect of this. “I went to the pizzeria, the one with the best pizza in the world.” There is a comma there because “the one with the best pizza in the world” is not a sentence by itself. These are the non-fiction rules. In fiction, you can do anything you want. Read James Joyce. I can’t! There is no punctuation.
10. Some
useful rules
1. Numbers under 100 should be written as out. You would not have this sentence. “President Bush met with 3 advisers.” It would be “President Bush met with three advisers.”
2. When you have an acronym, such as NSDD-75 or UN. First write out the name in full: National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 75, or United Nations (UN). After that first use of the term, use the acronym.
First, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever cut and paste anything from
a source into your document unless you place it in quotes and cite the source
of the quote.
This is really not a fine line. Did you write the sentence or not? Did you come up with the idea or not? When in doubt, it’s relatively simple: never include something in your paper that you did not write unless it is in quotes and then it also must be cited. Anything that is not your idea must be cited. Plagiarism is a violation of the VCU Honor Code and I will not hesitate to charge someone with a violation if I catch plagiarism. If you have questions about what is plagiarism, ask me or see VCU’s Writing Integrity Workshop.
If paraphrasing an idea: make sure to change the verb you use so it is different from the verb used in the source. Make sure you change everything but the proper nouns. Let’s say, you’ve read this in your source: “The president phoned the prime minister immediately after he received the news.” That may be the point you want to make in your paper, but you shouldn’t quote that and can’t copy it (or you’d be plagiarizing). The only words you really can use here would be “president” and “prime minister.” So, put it into your own words. How about: “Once the president had been informed, he contacted the prime minister.” And then cite the source of the information. That would not be a quote problem or a suspicion of plagiarism.
But just because someone else has already written an idea that you agree with 100% doesn't mean you can't discuss it in your paper. Just point out whose idea it is; paraphrase it in your own words, cite the source of the idea, and expand upon it. Generally, that is how Political Science works. 90% of all Political Science articles and books do the following:
There are various analyses of al-Qaeda’s power. Realists say al-Qaeda is a nuisance, but has no real ability to achieve any of its regional and global goals (Stan 2004, pp 1-17). Regionalists disagree, arguing that al-Qaeda can use its passive support to instigate the overthrow of many governments in the Middle East; however, once it does so, it makes itself more vulnerable to destruction by conventional-style US military operations (Kyle 2005, pp 365-374). Other scholars contend that al-Qaeda could successfully achieve its goals. Once having taken control of several regimes in the Middle East, the US will not have the capability to fight four or five simultaneous wars such as the current war in Iraq; the US will only have one option – containment of a new revolutionary ideology in a new cold war, in which terrorism will play a key role in the balance of power (Cartman 2005, pp. 27-42). Each analysis has merit; however, this essay concludes that a significant effort by the US at bringing populations in the Middle East into the realm of global capitalism and democracy, if accompanied by a new emphasis on human rights and international labor standards, will isolate al-Qaeda from Muslim populations around the world and leave it an extremist and fringe organization.
The article would then outline the theories of the realists, regionalists, and others, analyze each one, and then develop the fourth theory. There is no problem as long as Stan, Kyle, and Cartman get credited with developing their theories, and the fourth theory is new. If the fourth theory belongs to a fourth author (Kenny? Timmy?), then these authors must be cited and your article will show why his theory is superior to the other three.
I will catch any plagiarism. It takes me less than ten seconds to take any sentence from your paper and cut and paste it into a google search engine. If you have taken the paper from a document on the web, google will identify the source in under a second. I know none of you would ever try this, so tell your friends. The VCU library has a tutorial on how to cite and avoid plagiarism: http://guides.library.vcu.edu/integrity.
And
never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever cut and paste anything from a source into
your document unless you place it in quotes and cite the source of the
quote. (He said it again! And in
italics! Must mean something!) (And it’s in bold, and italics, and red; maybe I
should pay attention to this.)
Last points
LATE PAPERS
I will mark late papers down ONE GRADE for each day late.
That means that an almost perfect paper -- one that I would give 98 points to
-- becomes an 88 if one day late, 78 if two days late... all the way down to 8
points if nine days late, and zero points if ten days late. Talk to me if you
are having some family or personal problems. If there is a serious need to get
an extension on the paper, I will give you an extension. Also, remember that you have a rewrite. Hypothetically, if you are about to crash and
burn on a paper and can’t get me a finished product on time, hand me a rough
draft (or a sentence). You’ll get a
horrible grade, but then use that paper as your rewrite. This is a built-in loophole. Use it if you
need to. It’s much better than a late penalty.
Class Schedule
This is a tight schedule. Don’t fall behind because you may not be able to catch up. All deadlines are soft deadlines, meaning that a paper due in midnight has wiggle room until the sun comes up. Read the entire book unless otherwise noted; Mearsheimer is the only book where you’ll skip some chapters.
May 24: Begin reading Browning
May 31: Browning paper due at midnight (as May 31 becomes June 1)
June 1: Begin reading Mearsheimer (Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10; Skip 4 and 8; you’ll read 288 pages of the book)
June 11: Mearsheimer paper due at midnight (as June 11 becomes June 12)
June 12: Begin reading Jervis
June 21: Jervis paper due at midnight (as June 21 becomes June 22)
June 22: Begin reading Klare
July 2: Klare
paper due at
July 3: Begin reading Cronin
July 14:
· Cronin paper due (as June 14 becomes July 15)
· Rewrite due also at midnight (although you can turn this in at any earlier time if you choose)