API 5135 B – Munro
1
Ethics and Moral Reasoning for Public and International Affairs
API 5135 – Section B
Dr. Daniel Munro
Fall, 2013
COURSE OUTLINE
Class schedule:
Tuesdays, 17:30 – 20:30
Room: FSS 6004
Professor’s office hours:
Fridays, 9:00 – 11:00 or by appointment
Office: FSS6084
E-mail:
munro@conferenceboard.ca
Any questions sent by email should receive a response within two business days or during the following class if taken place within the
48 hours following receipt of the email. Note that the professor reserves the right not to answer an email if the level of language used
is inadequate.
OFFICIAL COURSE DESCRIPTION
Examination of ethics and moral reasoning applied to the study of public policy and international
affairs. Current debates in moral philosophy and how they help us to better understand
contemporary controversies in public and international affairs. Examination of a number of current
policy debates, such as issues of justice in social and environmental policy, the use of military
intervention in international affairs, and the accommodations of religious and ethnic differences in
liberal democracies.
GENERAL COURSE OBJECTIVES
In this course, we consider the moral justifications for and implications of public policy decisions, at
the domestic and international levels. As students of public policy, and if we are seeking to be
responsible public actors, we must be careful to understand the moral implications of the policy
choices that we make. This course intends to provide students with the critical thinking skills
essential to understanding the moral challenges posed by public policy-making, and the moral
responsibilities we have as decision-makers in the public sphere.
API 5135 B – Munro
2
SPECIFIC COURSE OBJECTIVES
In the first part of the course, we will explore the role and place of ethics and moral reasoning in
politics and consider normative concepts frequently used to evaluate public policy decisions.
Additionally, we learn some basic concepts and tools in logic and critical reasoning that we can
use to construct and assess moral arguments in politics. In the second part of the course, we will
assess the normative challenges posed by key public policy issues at the domestic level. In the
third part of the course, we will assess the normative challenges posed by key public policy issues
at the international level.
Each week, students will be introduced to key normative concepts and principles including rights,
freedom, equality, community, and democracy. These concepts are essential to understanding
how we balance, prioritize, or reconcile competing values in the public sphere and will assist in
answering questions such as: How should we address the tension between freedom of religion
and gender equality; between freedom of speech and democratic rule; and between liberty and
security?
Over the course of the semester we will discover that, in order to be persuasive, our moral and
political positions must be grounded in good reasons, and that we must be able to justify these
positions in a reasonable way to others in the public sphere. Students will have opportunities to
develop the reflective thinking that is essential to moral reasoning about one’s own moral and
political commitments, by engaging with each other and with the texts that we read.
The course will be run almost entirely as a discussion-based seminar. From time to time, I may
offer a brief lecture or outline of critical issues; however, students should be prepared to discuss
the readings in an informed, critical, and constructive fashion.
ASSESSMENT METHODS
Components of Final Mark
Evaluation format
Weight
Date
Logic Assessment Assignment
10 %
October 1
2 Justified Position Papers (20% each)
40 %
By November 5
By December 3
Participation
25 %
Weekly
Final Take-Home Exam
25 %
December 10
Logic Assessment Assignment
You will be required to write a short (500 word) memo assessing the strength of the arguments
presented in one of the articles distributed by the instructor in class on September 24. The
assignment is due a week later—October 1. Using the logical and critical reasoning tools discussed
in class, your memo must:

Identify the main premises, arguments, and conclusions in the article.

Identify and discuss any logical fallacies in the piece.

In light of your analysis of the logic of the article, and considering the validity of the moral
argument(s) being made, discuss how convincing the article is overall.
API 5135 B – Munro
3
The first two tasks can be presented in “bullet” form. You need not write full paragraphs, but you
should write in coherent sentences. The discussion of how convincing the article is overall (i.e.,
the third task), should be presented in well-structured paragraphs.
Justified Position Papers (Due by November 5 and December 3)
You will be required to write two justified position papers over the course of the semester—one
on a topic in Part 2 of the course (Domestic Challenges), and one on a topic in Part 3 of the course
(Global Challenges). Below, you will find for each week in Parts 2 and 3 of the course there is a
‘written assignment’, which indicates the assigned question for the paper if you choose to write in
that week. These papers are due on the week of the relevant discussion, prior to the discussion
– they will not be counted if you hand them in after the relevant discussion.
The goal of these short papers is for you to express a position and to argue for it clearly, using the
readings that have been assigned; you must make a claim and provide a step-by-step set of
reasons to justify your claim. You should consider at least two reasons in favour of your position
and at least one that opposes your position (for the purposes of demonstrating that it is false, or
not weighty, or misdirected).
The justified position papers must draw on the week’s readings, and it may do so in a variety of
ways. You may develop a point that emerges in the readings; you may synthesize several
different points in the readings; you may give an argument against the readings; you may put the
readings in conversation with each other. When you discuss the readings, you must say enough
about them to make it clear that you understand them, but you should not simply summarize the
readings in your paper. You must have a position on them. They should be no more than 1000
words or about 4 pages.
Participation:
Attendance and participation are mandatory. You are expected to arrive prepared to discuss every
week’s assigned readings, the study questions, and to contribute to the discussion. Failure to
participate actively will result in a participation grade of 0 (zero).
Final take home exam (Due December 10):
The final exam will consist of essay questions, which will ask you to consider the normative
implications of policies we have not considered over the course of the semester. You will be
required to show that you understand the central concepts we have considered in the course, and
to demonstrate that you have developed the reasoning skills essential to evaluating the moral
dimensions of public-policy making. The exam should be no more than 2000 words.
Policy on language quality and late submissions
Class attendance is necessary to successfully complete this course.
You will also be judged on your writing ability. It is recommended that you take appropriate measures to
avoid mistakes. You will be penalized between 5% and 15% for poor writing (at the professor’s discretion).
Late submissions are not tolerated. Exceptions are made only for illness or other serious situations deemed
as such by the professor. There will be a penalty for late submissions. University regulations require all
absences from exams and all late submissions due to illness to be supported by a medical certificate. The
Faculty reserves the right to accept or reject the reason put forth if it is not medical. Reasons such as travel,
work and errors made while reading the exam schedule are not usually accepted.
In the event of an illness or related complications, only the counseling service and the campus clinic (located
at 100 Marie-Curie) may issue valid certificates to justify a delay or absence.
API 5135 B – Munro
4
Late penalties are distinguished by the assignment.
As indicated above, justified position papers are due on the day of the seminar for which they are relevant,
prior to the seminar. They will not be counted if they are submitted after the discussion. The penalty for
failing to hand in a position paper by the due dates is a grade of 0 for the assignment.
The take home exam will be treated as if it were an in-class exam (and so subject to the rules guiding exams
at the University of Ottawa). Late submission of the exam is not permitted (except under extreme
circumstances), and late exams will be assigned a grade of 0.
We advise you to notify your professor as soon as possible if a religious holiday or event forces your absence
during an evaluation.
SCHEDULE
DATE
TOPIC
Part I: Foundations
September 10
Introduction
September 17
Moral Arguments and the Role of Ethics
September 24
Good Arguments (or “Logic Boot Camp”)
Part II: Domestic Challenges
October 1
Liberty, Culture, and Speech
October 8
Education and Religious Freedom
October 15
READING WEEK – NO CLASS
October 22
Liberty and Security
October 29
Official Disobedience/Whistleblowing
November 5
Inequality and Justice
Part III: Global Challenges
November 12
Global Poverty
November 19
Pirate Ethics
November 26
Immigration and Borders
December 3
Humanitarian Intervention
Exam Period
REQUIRED TEXTS (Available at the Bookstore)
Hugh Mercer Curtler, Ethical Argument, Second Edition (Oxford University Press, 2004).
API 5135 B – Munro
5
READINGS AND STUDY QUESTIONS
Part 1: Foundations
September 10: Introduction
September 17: Moral Arguments
Required Reading:

Curtler, Ethical Argument pp. 40-75.

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 15-19; 118-122; 514.

Martin Luther King, “Letter From a Birmingham Jail”
http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html

Singer, “What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?” The New York Times
(December 17, 2006). http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/magazine/17charity.t.html
Study Questions:
1. What is the “veil of ignorance”? What kinds of arguments does it rule out? Why does Rawls
think it helps us reason about principles of justice? Do you agree?
2. What is Singer’s main argument? Is the manner by which he presents that argument
consistent with the “ethical perspective” set out by Curtler and/or Rawls’ “veil of ignorance”?
3. Is Singer’s argument morally compelling? Why or why not?
4. Are the arguments that Martin Luther King makes about critical thought and dissent
compelling? Do they appeal to any controversial premises or reasons?
September 24: Good Arguments (or “Logic Boot Camp”)
Required Reading:

Curtler, Ethical Argument pp. 81-113; 125-126.

M. Wente, “Does inequality matter?” The Globe & Mail (January 8, 2011).
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/does-inequalitymatter/article1862109/

J. Bakan, “The Kids Are Not All Right”, The New York Times (August 21, 2011).
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/opinion/corporate-interests-threaten-childrenswelfare.html?_r=1

G. Morgan, “The ethics of oil in a time of turmoil”, The Globe & Mail (March 6, 2011).
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/gwyn-morgan/theethics-of-oil-in-a-time-of-turmoil/article1931708/
Study Questions:
1. What is an argument? What are the central elements of an argument? What is a good
argument?
2. What is the difference between deductive and inductive arguments? In what ways should
our assessments of deductive and inductive arguments differ?
3. What are some common logical fallacies?
API 5135 B – Munro
6
4. Using the tools provided by Curtler, assess the arguments made in the opinion pieces. In
each case, what are the premises and what are the conclusions? Does the author commit
any fallacies? In light of your assessment, does the author presents a compelling case?
Part 2: Domestic Challenges
October 1: Liberty, Culture, and Speech
Required Reading:

Mill, On Liberty (Chapters 1 & 2) (55 pages).
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=233&chapter=
16550&layout=html&Itemid=27).

Randall Hansen, ‘The Danish Cartoon Controversy: A Defence of Liberal Freedom’,
International Migration, 44/5 (2006) pp. 7-16 (11 pages).

Joseph Carens, ‘Free Speech and Democratic Norms in the Danish Cartoons Controversy’,
International Migration, 44/5 (2006), pp. 33-42 (9 pages).

Flemming Rose, ‘Why I published those Cartoons’, Washington Post, Feb 19, 2006.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html
Study Questions:
1. What is Mill’s “one simple principle” and how does he defend that principle? Is the principle
compelling? Is the justification for the principle convincing?
2. Why does Mill think that free speech should be protected?
3. Does a democratic society have reason to ban offensive speech? Should we worry that
offensive speech might disrupt attempts at multicultural integration?
October 8: Education and Religion
Required Reading:

L. Blair, “Religion, ethics and schools: Is Quebec’s New Ethics and Religious Culture course a
step toward mutual respect, or a new state religion?” Inroads 26, pp. 23-29.

G. Caldwell, “Imposed from above: The Ethics and Religious Culture program violates the
tenets of Quebec’s existing shared public culture.” Inroads 26, pp. 30-41.

G. Leroux, “Education for pluralism: A challenge for today’s Quebec.” Inroads 26, pp. 42-51.

Supreme Court of Canada, S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, 2012 SCC 7.
http://scc.lexum.org/en/2012/2012scc7/2012scc7.pdf
Study Questions:
1. Does liberal democracy have a legitimate interest in educating citizens about other
religions? What steps, if any, can the state take to satisfy that goal?
2. On what grounds have some groups claimed exemption from the ethics and religion course
for their children? Are those grounds compelling?
3. Do parents have a right to insulate their children from other ethical and religious
worldviews?
4. Did the Supreme Court reach the right decision in this case?
API 5135 B – Munro
7
October 15: READING WEEK
October 22: Liberty and Security
Required Reading:

J. Waldron, “Security and Liberty: The Image of Balance.” The Journal of Political Philosophy
11, 2 (2003), pp. 191-210.

M. Ignatieff, “Democracy and the Lesser Evil” in The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in a Time of
Terror, pp. 1-24.

A. Dershowitz, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured?” in Why Terrorism Works,
pp. 132-163.

C. Hitchens, “Believe Me, It’s Torture” in Arguably, pp. 448-454.

S. Landau, “Making Sense from Snowden: What’s Significant in the NSA Surveillance
Revelations.” IEEE Computer Society 11, 4, pp. 54-63.
http://privacyink.org/html/MakingSense.pdf
Study Questions:
1. Should we attempt to “balance” liberty and security? Why or why not? If so, how?
2. Does evidence of a terrorist threat affect our reasoning? How? Why?
3. Is torture ever justified? Why or why not?
4. Is ubiquitous surveillance an acceptable tactic in the war on terror? Why or why not?
5. Does the “effectiveness” of torture or surveillance matter to the debate?
October 29: Official Disobedience/Whistleblowing
Required Reading:

Gutmann and D. Thompson, “Official Disobedience” in Ethics and Politics: Cases and
Comments, pp. 191-192.

D. Rudenstine, “Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers” in Ethics and Politics: Cases and
Comments, pp.202-211.

D. Brooks, “The Solitary Leaker.” New York Times June 10, 2013.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/opinion/brooks-the-solitary-leaker.html?_r=0

A. Fung, “What the Snowden Affair Tells Us About American Democracy.” Boston Review July 7,
2013. www.bostonreview.net/blog/what-snowden-affair-tells-us-about-american-democracy

“Whistleblowers at Health Canada Protect Food Safety” (Environmental Health, 2001).
http://www.environmentalhealth.ca/summer01blow.html

D. Hutton, “Effectively Silencing Canada’s Whistleblowers” Toronto Star, August 13, 2011.
www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2011/08/13/effectively_silencing_canadas_whi
stleblowers.html
Study Questions:
1. What should public officials do when they disagree with a policy or decision? What specific
steps should they take and why?
2. What considerations weigh against permitting official disobedience? What considerations
weigh in favour? What justifies official disobedience?
API 5135 B – Munro
8
3. Do whistleblowers have to be correct to deserve protection? Why or why not?
4. Should Ellsberg have been punished? Snowden? The Health Canada 3? Why or why not?
5. What institutional or procedural arrangements, if any, should be put in place for
whistleblowers?
November 5: Inequality and Justice
(Last day to submit position paper for Part 2)
Required Reading:

Conference Board, “Income Inequality.”
www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/income-inequality.aspx

A. Coyne, “Every one of the ailments we imagine ourselves to be suffering is a reality in
the U.S.” National Post, December 14, 2012.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/14/andrew-coyne-canadian-income-inequality/

M. Corak, “Three rules for good pundit behavior” December 16, 2012.
http://milescorak.com/2012/12/16/three-rules-for-good-pundit-behaviour-or-if-you-likehow-to-obstruct-the-debate-on-inequality-in-three-easy-steps/

S. Gordon, “Dealing with inequality Part I” Maclean’s Magazine, January 11, 2013.
hwww2.macleans.ca/2013/01/11/dealing-with-inequality-part-i-the-bottom-99-per-cent/

Fraser Institute, “Measuring Income Mobility in Canada: Executive Summary.” November
2012, pp. iv-viii. www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/researchnews/research/publications/measuring-income-mobility-in-canada.pdf

John Rawls, Theory of Justice, (second edition), selections TBD

Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, selections TBD
Study Questions:
1. How much inequality, if any, is permissible in a democratic society? How much, if any, is
necessary? What, if anything, is it good for? What, if anything, is it bad for?
2. Is inequality a problem in Canada? Should we care about inequality? Why or why not?
3. Does it matter how inequality emerges? Does the phenomenon of social/income mobility
alter the debate about inequality?
4. What is Rawls’ “difference principle”? Does it strike you as a good principle for addressing
inequality? Why or why not?
5. What is the Wilt Chamberlain example meant to illustrate? Why does Nozick believe we
ought to reject what he terms ‘patterned’ distributions?
API 5135 B – Munro
9
Part 3: Global Challenges
November 12: Global Poverty and Inequality
Required Reading:

Thomas Pogge, ‘Real World Justice’, Journal of Ethics 9, 1-2 (2005), pp. 29-53.

David Miller, ‘Against Global Egalitarianism’, Journal of Ethics, 9, 1-2, (2005), pp. 55-79.

Also revisit Singer, “What Should a Billionaire Give—And What Should You?” (from Sept. 22)
Study Questions:
1. What exactly is the moral issue with global poverty? Global inequality?
2. Is there a moral obligation to address global poverty or inequality? What is the nature of
that obligation?
3. Is Pogge correct that “we – the more advantaged citizens of the affluent countries – are
actively responsible for most of the life-threatening poverty in the world”? If so, does that
make the case for a more demanding egalitarian principle of global distribution?
4. Are we ethically inconsistent if we hold that our obligations to ‘distant others’ are weaker
than our obligations to fellow citizens? Are there differences between domestic and global
circumstances that permit or require different standards of justice?
November 19: Pirate Ethics
Required Reading:

R. Kaplan, “Anarchy on Land Means Piracy at Sea,” New York Times, 11 April.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/opinion/12kaplan.html

J. Bahadur, “Somali pirate: 'We're not murderers... we just attack ships,” The Guardian 24
May 2011. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/24/a-pioneer-of-somali-piracy

A. Klein, “The Moral Economy of Somali Piracy – Organised Criminal Business or Subsistence
Activity?” Global Policy 4, 1 (February 2013): 94-100.

P. Schneider and M. Winkler, “The Robin Hood Narrative: A Discussion of Empirical and
Ethical Legitimizations of Somali Pirates” Ocean Development & International Law 44, 2
(2013): 185-201.
Recommended:

“Somalia and the World’s Pirate Problem.” On Point—WBUR (Boston public radio broadcast).
March 3, 2011. (46 minutes) http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/03/03/world-pirate-problem
Study Questions:
1. Is Somali piracy an ethical issue? Why or why not?
2. Do poverty and injustice on land legitimize piracy on water to any extent? Why or why not?
3. Who should be held accountable for the problem of piracy? Who should bear responsibility
for addressing the problem?
4. How should the international community deal with pirates and/or the problem of piracy?
API 5135 B – Munro
10
November 26: Immigration and Borders
Required Reading:

Mathias Risse, ‘On the Morality of Immigration’, Ethics and International Affairs, 22, 1
(2008), pp. 25-34.

Rainer Baubock, “Free movement and the asymmetry between exit and entry” Ethics and
Economics, 4, 1 (2006), pp. 1-7.
https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/jspui/bitstream/1866/3369/1/2006v4n1_BAUBOCK.pdf

Michael Blake, “Universal and Qualified Rights to Immigration,” Ethics and Economics, 4, 1
(2006), pp. 1-6.
https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/jspui/bitstream/1866/3370/1/2006v4n1_BLAKE.pdf

Arash Abizadeh, “Liberal Egalitarian Arguments for Closed Borders: Some Preliminary Critical
Reflections,” Ethics and Economics, 4, 1 (2006), pp. 1-8.
https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/jspui/bitstream/1866/3374/1/2006v4n1_ABIZADEH.pdf
Study Questions:
1. Is there a right to immigrate—i.e., a right to enter a new political society with expectation of
becoming a member? Why or why not?
2. Is the apparent global asymmetry between a right to exit and the lack of a right to entry
sufficient justification to liberalize immigration?
3. Is a desire to protect national culture a good reason to limit immigration?
4. Should we consider relying on immigration as a way to remedy wealth inequalities?
December 3: Humanitarian Intervention
(Last day to submit position paper for Part 2)
Required Reading:

M. Walzer, ‘The Argument about Humanitarian Intervention’, Dissent, Winter 2002: 29-37.

M. Ignatieff, ‘Intervention and State Failure’, Dissent, Winter 2002, pp. 115-123.

S. Wertheim, “When Humanitarianism Hurts” The Utopian April 2010. http://www.theutopian.org/2010/04/When-Humanitarianism-Hurts.html

M. Ignatieff, “Bosnia and Syria: Intervention Then and Now.” Boston Review, August 2013.
http://www.bostonreview.net/world/bosnia-and-syria-intervention-then-and-now
Study Questions:
1. Is there an obligation to intervene when the rights of citizens in other states are being
violated? How egregious must the violation be before intervention is justified?
2. Is there a right to intervene? What does it mean to have a right to protect others’ rights?
3. To what extent does the language of human rights help us to determine when there is a
moral case for intervention? Does it matter what is causing human rights violations?
4. Does the existence of an international norm of intervention (if there is such a norm)
generate “moral hazards” or perverse incentives for certain groups of people in states
characterized by conflict? What implications should this have for both the norms and policy?
API 5135 B – Munro
11
WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS
Logical Assessment Exercise
DUE OCTOBER 1
You will be required to write a short (500 word) memo assessing the strength of the arguments
presented in one of the articles distributed by the instructor in class on September 24. Using the
logical and critical reasoning tools discussed in class, your memo must:

Identify the main premises, arguments, and conclusions in the article.

Identify and discuss any logical fallacies in the piece.

In light of your analysis of the logic of the article, and considering the validity of the moral
argument(s) being made, discuss how convincing the article is overall.
The first two tasks can be presented in “bullet” form. You need not write full paragraphs, but you
should write in coherent sentences. The discussion of how convincing the article is overall (i.e., the
third task), should be presented in a well-structured paragraph or paragraphs.
Justified Opinion Paper 1: Domestic Topics
[First justified opinion paper due by November 5]
October 1: Liberty, Culture, and Speech
Does a democratic society have reason to ban offensive speech? Should we worry that offensive
speech might disrupt attempts at multicultural integration? Discuss with reference to the Danish
Cartoon Controversy.
October 8: Education and Religion
Does a liberal democracy have a legitimate interest in educating citizens about other religions and
cultures? If so, what steps can it legitimately take to do so? If not, why not? Discuss with reference
to the ERC controversy in Quebec.
October 22: Liberty and Security
Is torture ever justified? Why or why not?
OR
Is surveillance of citizens justified by security concerns? Why or why not?
October 29: Official Disobedience/Whistleblowing
Should Edward Snowden be punished for his actions? Why or why not?
November 5: Inequality and Justice
How much inequality, if any, is morally permissible in a democratic society? Does it matter how
inequality comes about? Does it matter if social mobility is high or low?
API 5135 B – Munro
12
Justified Opinion Paper 2: Global Topics
[Second justified opinion paper due by December 3]
November 12: Global Poverty
Do citizens in developed states have obligations to address poverty in developing states? Why or
why not? Do they have obligations to address inequality? Discuss with reference to Pogge, Miller,
and Singer.
November 19: Pirate Ethics
Do citizens in developed states share any responsibility for phenomenon of Somali piracy? Do we
bear any responsibility for addressing the problem? Why or why not?
November 26: Immigration
Developed states (like Canada and the United States) tend to select immigrants on the basis of
their potential contribution to the economy. Is that fair? Why or why not?
December 3: Humanitarian Intervention
Is there an obligation to intervene when the human rights of citizens in other states are being
violated? Is there a right to intervene? How egregious must the violations be before
intervention is justified?
Note: Each of these questions is intended to probe a specific moral problem. It may be that you are
interested in another case, in which you believe the same moral problem is at stake. I am willing to
consider your writing on a different case – but you must have permission from me in advance.
API 5135 B – Munro
13
Resources for you
Mentoring Centre - http://www.sciencessociales.uottawa.ca/mentor/fra/
The goal of the Mentoring Centre is to help students with their academic and social well being during
their time at the University of Ottawa. Regardless of where a student stands academically, or how far
along they are in completing their degree, the mentoring centre is there to help students continue on
their path to success.
A student may choose to visit the mentoring centre for very different reasons. Younger students may
wish to talk to their older peers to gain insight into programs and services offered by the University,
while older student may simply want to brush up on study and time management skills or learn about
programs and services for students nearing the end of their degree.
In all, the Mentoring Centre offers a place for students to talk about concerns and problems that they
might have in any facet of their lives. While students are able to voice their concerns and problems
without fear of judgment, mentors can garner further insight in issues unique to students and find a more
practical solution to better improve the services that the Faculty of Social Sciences offers, as well as the
services offered by the University of Ottawa.
Academic Writing Help Centre - http://www.sass.uottawa.ca/writing/
At the AWHC you will learn how to identify, correct and ultimately avoid errors in your writing and
become an autonomous writer. In working with our Writing Advisors, you will be able to acquire the
abilities, strategies and writing tools that will enable you to:
 Master the written language of your choice
 Expand your critical thinking abilities
 Develop your argumentation skills
 Learn what the expectations are for academic writing
Career Services - http://www.sass.uottawa.ca/careers/
Career Services offers various services and a career development program to enable you to recognize and
enhance the employability skills you need in today's world of work.
Counselling Service- http://www.sass.uottawa.ca/personal/
There are many reasons to take advantage of the Counselling Service. We offer:
 Personal counselling
 Career counselling
 Study skills counselling
Access Service - http://www.sass.uottawa.ca/acces/
The Access Service contributes to the creation of an inclusive environment by developing strategies and
implementing measures that aim to reduce the barriers to learning for students who have learning
disabilities, health, psychiatric or physical conditions.
Student Resources Centres - http://www.communitylife.uottawa.ca/en/resources.php
The Student Resources Centres aim to fulfill all sorts of students needs.
API 5135 B – Munro
Beware of Academic Fraud!
Academic fraud is an act committed by a student to distort the marking of assignments, tests,
examinations, and other forms of academic evaluation. Academic fraud is neither accepted nor
tolerated by the University. Anyone found guilty of academic fraud is liable to severe academic
sanctions.
Here are a few examples of academic fraud:
• engaging in any form of plagiarism or cheating;
• presenting falsified research data;
• handing in an assignment that was not authored, in whole or in part, by the student;
• submitting the same assignment in more than one course, without the written consent of the
professors concerned.
In recent years, the development of the Internet has made it much easier to identify academic
plagiarism. The tools available to your professors allow them to trace the exact origin of a text on
the Web, using just a few words.
In cases where students are unsure whether they are at fault, it is their responsibility to consult the
University’s Web site at the following address:
http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/eng/writing_tools.asp « Tools for Writing Papers and
Assignments ».
Persons who have committed or attempted to commit (or have been accomplices to) academic fraud
will be penalized. Here are some examples of the academic sanctions, which can be imposed:
• a grade of « F » for the assignment or course in question;
• an additional program requirement of between 3 and 30 credits;
• suspension or expulsion from the Faculty.
Last session, most of the students found guilty of fraud were given an « F » for the course and had
between three and twelve credits added to their program requirement.
For more information, refer to:
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/info/newsletter/fraud_e.html
14