Liberal Arts Essentials Assessment Plan
Course: POLS 342 – Ethical Issues in Politics
Writing Unit: no
Instructor(s): Dr. Brian King; may also be taught by adjunct faculty
Methods: 1) Student essays focused on critical evaluation of important ethical issues in
American politics; 2) LAE Course Evaluation Form (to be provided by the Assessment
Committee)
LAE Category: Moral Inquiry
Goal: Four (4) – Muskingum students will demonstrate knowledge of physical wellness and of
ethical and spiritual concepts.
Objective: Four (4) – Students will demonstrate an ability to assess ethical and moral issues in
society critically.
A. Student work examined
List the tasks used to measure the objective (e.g., exams, research project/paper
assignments, presentation or class assignment) and attach a copy of each along
with the Departmental plan.
At multiple points during the semester, students are required to complete essays
which address important ethical issues in American and global politics. On each issue,
students are expected to 1) identify the principal points of view, 2) outline the main
arguments behind each of those points of view, 3) critically evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of these arguments, and 4) explain how these arguments would be
assessed under various ethical theories/perspectives. The essays could be assigned as
exam essays, take-home responses, or as part of a separate course assignment. (A
copy of one set of take-home essays used by Dr. King is attached.) The written
responses will be evaluated against Objective Four (4) of LAE Learning Goal Four (4),
with the above expectations acting as the criteria by which responses will be measured.
Beyond this assignment, a second measure to be utilized is the course
evaluation form that is forthcoming from the Assessment Committee. This form should
include a question concerning how well the course did in providing students the tools to
acquire multiple and integrative approaches to lifelong learning.
B. Scoring Criteria
Briefly explain the criteria used to evaluate student performance in relation to the
learning objective (i.e., what constitutes advanced, proficient, partially proficient,
not proficient, etc.) Attach copies of measurement instrument or rubric.
NOTE: See Section C below for scoring questions.
Advanced – Students achieving this ranking will score 18-20 points on their essays.
Proficient – Students achieving this ranking will score 15-17 points on their essays.
6/11
Partially Proficient – Students achieving this ranking will score 12-14 points on their
essays.
Not Proficient – Students achieving this ranking will have scored 0-11 points on their
essays.
C. Attachments (Rubrics, Checklists, Pre and Post tests, other evaluation methods,
etc.)
Papers submitted to the instructor, in addition to getting a standard evaluation,
will also be evaluated on five additional criteria – identifying principal points of view,
outlining main arguments behind those points of view, critically evaluating strengths and
weaknesses of those arguments, explaining how the arguments would be assessed
under various ethical theories/perspectives, and finally the student’s overall ability to
critically assess ethical and moral issues in society. IMPORTANT: The evaluation of
these five criteria will NOT be part of the student’s grade in any way, shape, or form.
Very Well =4
Well = 3
Marginally = 2
Not at All = 1
How well do the essays demonstrate the student’s ability to identify the principal points
of view with regard to the ethical issue at hand?
Very Well
Well
Marginally
Not at All
How well do the essays demonstrate the student’s ability to outline the main arguments
behind the principal points of view mentioned above?
Very Well
Well
Marginally
Not at All
How well do the essays demonstrate the student’s ability to evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of the main arguments mentioned above?
Very Well
Well
Marginally
Not at All
How well do the essays demonstrate the student’s ability to explain how the main
arguments mentioned above would be assessed under various ethical
theories/perspectives?
Very Well
Well
Marginally
Not at All
Overall, how well do the essays demonstrate the student’s ability to demonstrate an
ability to assess ethical and moral issues in society critically.
Very Well
Well
Marginally
Not at All
6/11
POLS 342-1
Ethical Issues in Politics
Spring Semester, 2011
Take-Home Essays for Section Two
Students completing this exam alternative must complete four (4) of the eight essays below and
submit their typed responses to those questions to the instructor no later than the start of the
class period designated for the exam (check syllabus and in-class announcements).
Each typed essay should be headed with the student's name, course name (or number), and an
indication of which essay is being answered.
Students must select one (1) essay from each of the four issue areas listed below, for a total of
four essays to be submitted by the due date.
Students wishing to do well on this exam should make sure to give more substance, more depth
of analysis, and more evidence of the readings (as well as in-class discussions) than would be
given by most students on the first exam.
ISSUE AREA ONE: ABORTION & EUTHANASIA
For essays 1-2, complete no more than one (1). Make sure responses are typed and labeled.
1. Outline the main arguments both for and against abortion, as articulated by the authors in
Beckwith. Which of the authors made the strongest arguments, and why? The weakest?
Analyzing both sets of arguments through the eyes of a utilitarian, determine which side is most
persuasive. How would an egoist respond?
2. What are the various views on euthanasia as discussed by the authors in Beckwith, and
which author(s) make the most sense? Why? Which ones make the least sense, and why?
Are there differences between traditional and alternative views on the issue? Are there
different ways to define euthanasia itself? How would virtue ethics address the issue?
ISSUE AREA TWO: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
For essays 3-4, complete no more than one (1). Make sure responses are typed and labeled.
3. Focusing on the authors in Beckwith, explain the different ways in which affirmative action
could be instituted, including the strengths and weaknesses of each. From a Kantian outlook,
which (if any) of these approaches would be acceptable and why? From a utilitarian outlook?
4. Outline and critically analyze the principal arguments in favor and against affirmative action
as discussed in class and in the readings, and what the current status of the system is. Explain
which ethical perspective(s) would most strongly support and most strongly oppose the idea.
6/11
NEXT PAGE 
ISSUE AREA THREE: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
For essays 5-6, complete no more than one (1). Make sure responses are typed and labeled.
5. What are the various ways in which "marriage" can be defined, according to the authors in
Beckwith, and what connotations/consequences does each definition bring? What would a
moral relativist say about the issue of same-sex marriage, and how would an objectivist
respond?
6. Utilizing the readings in Beckwith, explain the arguments both in favor of and opposed to the
legalization of same-sex marriage, including the pro's and con's of each and which perspective
would most likely oppose it. Can the government remain neutral on this issue? Explain.
ISSUE AREA FOUR: CAMPAIGNS & ELECTIONS
For essays 7-8, complete no more than one (1). Make sure responses are typed and labeled.
7. Utilizing appropriate outside sources, delineate the realities of fundraising and campaign
spending in presidential and congressional campaigns, including where the money comes from
and where it is spent. Which ethical perspective would most likely defend the status quo, and
which would most likely condemn it? In both instances, give examples in your explanation.
8. Utilizing appropriate outside sources, delineate the realities of campaign advertising and
other activities designed to gain voters, including the effects of these activities on voter attitudes
and turnout. How does this affect governing after the election? Which perspective would most
defend this system? Condemn it? In both instances, give examples in your explanation.
6/11