PROMPT:

“Governments are justified in circumventing civil law when doing so is vital to the protection of
national security.”

NOTES:

Government justified in circumventing civil laws when doing so is vital to the protection of
national security.

Not true - violating civil rights, oppressing individuals, government overreach of power

Key words: justified - what does that mean? Vital to the protection of national security? If so
vital, why don’t civil laws allow it?

True - The most fundamental role of government is to provide security to its citizens. When it
fails to do that, then government cannot provide for any other service, much less a guarantee of
its civil rights.

Example #1: Edward Snowden, releasing sensitive government data (threat to national security)
because it violated citizens’ rights.

Example #2: Chinese government vies for more complete control over its citizens, can make
dubious arguments “for national security”

Conclusion:

Thesis: No.

ESSAY:

Is government justified in violating an individual’s rights in the name of national security? Some
would argue that the most fundamental role of government is to provide security to its citizens -
failing that, then government cannot allocate resources to any other cause, including
guaranteeing its citizens’ civil rights. Others would argue that if such actions are vital to the
protection of national security, then why is it not permissible under civil law? Though the role of
ensuring the security of its citizens is a central tenet of government, a government that acts
without transparency is one that can be suspected of committing moral misdeeds - in the name
of national security only.
A nation that has had to confront that question is France. After the Paris attacks and multiple
other incidents that raised public unease on security, cameras were installed on every street
corner in Paris. However, public surveillance was enacted with the consent of the public and
efforts of France’s lawmaking bodies. Civil laws were not breached, and the public continues to
have trust in its government to protect themselves and to be transparent.

Meanwhile in the U.S., Edward Snowden had been feeling increasing unease with the activities
of the agency in which he worked, the NSA. Intrusive data collection with cavalier handling of
the data caused Snowden to come to the realization that the NSA’s concerns were not align
with the spirit of “national security” - they were to gain more insight, and thus more control over
its populace. His release of extremely sensitive documents may have forced him to flee the
country from government prosecution, but it earned him the sympathy of the media and
America.

Another country that frequently acts in the name of national security is China. The Communist
Party’s primary agenda is to keep itself in power, and so will use the hackneyed argument of
national security to maintain its Great Firewall and close its markets to influential foreign
companies (Google and Facebook). A recent development in the past year is the government’s
efforts to force its overseas citizens to return to China, thereby keeping knowledge trapped
within the country. Such government overreach leads to despotism.

Government is not justified in circumventing civil laws, especially when it is capable of legislating
laws through the traditional process to grant itself more powers. When government bypasses
laws, even in the name of national security, then there is something suspicious going on.
PROMPT:

The following is from a recent email from the Diord Corp. Human Resources Manager: “Tobor
Technologies found that mental health problems and mental illness were responsible for about
15 percent of employee sick days. Tobor amended its employee insurance plan so that workers
receive the same coverage for mental illness as they do for physical illness. In addition, the
company hired an on-site psychologist and created a system that allows worker sto schedule
confidential counseling appointments. After one year, the number of sick days used by
employees declined by 10 percent. Diord Corp. has had an increase in employee sick days over
the past two years, so we should introduce a similar insurance plan and counseling program.
These measures will surely reduce employee absenteeism and cause an increase in
productivity.”

Write a response in which you examine the argument’s unstated assumptions, making sure to
explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the
assumptions prove unwarranted.

NOTES:

Assumptions:

Tobor Technologies: adding mental illness coverage to insurance plan, on-site psychologist,
confidential counseling appointments system —> number of sick days used by employees to
decline by 10 percent.

Dior’s Corp: company and employee base is similar enough to Tobor Technologies so that
instituting same change will produce same results

Adding will reduce employee absenteeism, increase in productivity

Introduction
Issue #1
Issue #2
Agreement
Conclusion

ESSAY:
Mental illness is a serious condition that afflicts an increasing number of people. Adding mental
illness coverage to a health insurance plan is the right thing to do, as any health-related matter
that impedes an employee’s ability to work should be allocated for sick time. However, the Dior’s
Corp. HR Manager’s claim that “these measures will surely reduce employee absenteeism and
cause an increase in productivity” is not a settled matter. Further knowledge on the results of
Tobor’s changes and the nature of Diord Corp’s increase of employee sick days is required
before the HR manager’s claim can be corroborated.

The first issue with this claim is that adding mental illness coverage to insurance will increase
employee productivity. The HR Manager has not considered that while more employees may
take advantage of the mental health support, they may also be more inclined to bring their
problems with them to work. Though Tobor Technologies’ employee attendance rate showed
improvement, no mention was made about its employees’ productivity levels.

The second issue with this claim is that the assumption that Tobor Technologies resembles
Diord Corp. closely enough to achieve the same results from implementing the same changes.
Why has Diord Corp. experienced an increase in employee sick days over the past two years?
Has worsening air quality or environmental factors adversely affected the employees, in which
the solution is to possibly move the company to a better location or provide air filter masks?

Though the HR manager’s claim fails to address the above mentioned concerns, adding mental
health coverage to the employee insurance plan and a counseling program is not a bad idea.
Americans have been either experiencing worse overall mental health, and a prime indicator is
the rise of the national suicide rate. Diord Corp. should follow Tobor’s example and perform an
assessment of its own employees’ health. How many of the sick days taken are due to mental
or physical health issues, and why are they occurring? Diord is then better positioned to attack
the root of the problem.

Mental health is a serious health issue that, with thorough investigation, can be managed by
companies who depend on employees enjoying positive mental and physical health. Diord
Corp’s HR Manager’s claim that Tobor’s measures “will surely reduce employee absenteeism
and causes an increase in productivity” needs to be corroborated, which it sounds like Diord
Corp has the resources to do.