Search results

"Genocide" published on by Oxford University Press.

There is a great deal of unnecessary confusion out there about
assessment of student learning. The theories are inconsistent, the
processes are overly complex, and the advice is contradictory. There are
national assessment experts telling us what to do, discipline-specific
assessment experts telling us what to do, and institution-based assessment
experts telling us what to do. And they all seem to speak a different
language. The one point on which they all seem to agree is that we have to
begin doing it; no more stalling. For
further information about simple, practical assessment, see Linda Suskie,
Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide (Bolton, MA:
Anker Publishing, 2004).

Examines the imperative of leading governments, & Western states in particular, in timely prevention & intervention in the event of future genocidal activity. Political, economic, legal & moral obligations are listed as general global responsibilities. Britain, France & the United States as leading Western states have a greater duty in preventive roles because of their post World War II commitments, their design of the present liberal order & their combined military, economic & cultural influence. The author then evaluates the crises in Rwanda, Bosnia & Kosovo with regard to Western state performance & finds America's participation particularly tardy, obfuscatory & pusillanimous. The narrow view of genocide as a humanitarian interest is typically assigned the lowest level of priority in national security policy & as such needs redefining by genocide scholars. This definition is mandatory to educate state leaders about the global threat posed by future barbarity. Author concludes that overcoming Westphalian-based objections to humanitarian intervention is needed as well as integrating humanitarian, national security communities & genocide scholars. S. de Haast