Air University

Michael D. Rothstein, Major General, Commander and President

Air War College

Jeremy T. Sloane, Brigadier General, Commandant
AIR UNIVERSITY

AIR WAR COLLEGE

The Stakes Are High

Ethics Education at US War Colleges

Beth A. Behn

Lieutenant Colonel, USA

Maxwell Paper No. 73

Air University Press

Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
Project Editor

Donna Budjenska

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Behn, Beth A., 1972- author. | Air University (U.S.). Air War College, 

issuing body. | Air University (U.S.). Press, publisher.

Title: The stakes are high, ethics education at US war colleges / Beth A. 

Behn.

Other titles: Maxwell paper (Air University (U.S.). Air War College) ; no. 

73. 2575-7539

Description: Maxwell AFB, Alabama : Air University Press, [2018]. | Series: 

Maxwell paper, ISSN 2575-7539 ; no. 73 | Includes bibliographical 

references.

Identifiers: LCCN 2017053005 | ISBN 9781585662760

Subjects: LCSH: Military education—Moral and ethical aspects—United 

States. | Military ethics—Study and teaching—United States. | Moral 

education—Armed Forces—United States. | United States—Armed 

Forces—Officers—Professional ethics. | Soldiers—Training of—Moral 

and ethical aspects—United States.

Classification: LCC U408 .B44 2018 | DDC 174/.93550071173—dc23 | 

SUDOC D 

301.26/33:73

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017053005

Published by Air University Press in January 2018

Disclaimer

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or 

implied within are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Air University Press, Air University, 

the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any 

other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited.

This Maxwell Paper and others in the series are available electronically at the AU Press website: http://www.airuniversity.af.mil

/AUPress/Maxwell-Papers/

Copy Editor 

Carolyn Broadnax Underwood

Cover Art, Book Design, and Illustrations

Daniel Armstrong

Composition and Prepress Production

Vivian D. O’Neal

Print Preparation and Distribution

Diane Clark

AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS

Director and Publisher

Dr. Ernest Allan Rockwell

Air University Press 

600 Chennault Circle, Building 1405

Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6010 

http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/AUPress/

Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/AirUnivPress

and 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/aupress

Air University Press
iii

Contents

Foreword v

About the Author vii

Abstract ix

Introduction 1

Thesis 1

Methodology 2

Rationale for Military Emphasis on Ethics 2

 An Ethical “Crisis” in the Military 3

Rationale and Objectives for Ethics Education at War Colleges 4

 The Model War College Ethics Program 9

Current War College Ethics-Education Programs as 

Compared to the Model 10

Findings and Recommendations 11

 Conclusion 12

 Notes 13

 Bibliography 19

v

Foreword

It is with pleasure that I can endorse the return of the Air War College 

Maxwell Papers, a selection of the best professional studies papers from our 

graduates. These works, meant to highlight topics of importance to senior 

leaders and support discussion and further investigation, demonstrate the excellent research and analytical capabilities of our students.

In this paper, Lt Col Beth Behn, USA, looks at the aftermath of ethical 

lapses by senior military leaders and calls from the entire chain of command 

for additional emphasis on leadership ethics and professionalism. As professional military education institutions attempt to answer the call, how should 

they design curriculum, support the right faculty, and frame their desired 

outcomes in productive and achievable ways? Behn offers a model war college 

ethics-education program and analyzes existing coursework to suggest ways 

in which we can continually improve.

The Maxwell Papers are an outstanding example of the research work done 

at the Air War College as students hone their critical thinking skills while 

tacking real-world problems facing the Air Force in the twenty-first century. 

As part of our spirit of academic freedom and open debate, we hope you find 

them provocative stimulants for discussion and encourage you to engage on 

the issues raised.

JEREMY T. SLOANE

Brigadier General, USAF

Commandant, Air War College

vii

About the Author

Lt Col Beth A. Behn is an Army logistics officer. Originally from Cedar 

Falls, Iowa, Behn received her commission from the United States Military 

Academy in 1994. She holds an MA and PhD in history from the University 

of Massachusetts–Amherst and is a graduate of the US Army Command and 

General Staff College and the US Air War College. She has commanded at the 

company and battalion level and has served in a variety of staff positions. She 

has also served as an assistant professor of history at the United States Military Academy. Behn’s operational experiences include deployments to Haiti, 

Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Since researching and writing this paper, Behn 

has been promoted to colonel and is currently commander, 7th Transportation Brigade (Expeditionary), Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia.

ix

Abstract

A series of high-profile ethical lapses by senior military professionals has 

generated calls from levels as high as the commander in chief for a renewed 

emphasis on military ethics. Leaders engaged in professional military education (PME) across the joint force have worked to ensure their programs support this call. This paper explores and assesses the ethics education programs 

at the service senior leader colleges (war colleges).

There are three fundamental questions facing those charged with teaching 

ethics to senior military officers. What are the desired outcomes of ethics education? How should the curriculum be structured to achieve those outcomes? 

And, finally, what is the correct faculty composition to develop and employ 

that curriculum? Using the answers to those questions to produce a rough 

framework for a model war college ethics education program, this paper then 

compares the current war college programs to this model form in order to 

determine areas of strength and weakness. This analysis reveals that the existing ethics education programs at the war colleges compare favorably to the 

model program structure. However, leaders at these institutions could further 

strengthen their programs by creating and empowering an “ethics team” that 

includes trained ethicists and military practitioners and by conducting more 

robust faculty development programs for nonethicists.

1

Introduction

Leaders entrusted with immense power over other human beings 

and with the employment of immensely powerful weapons cannot 

take ethics lightly. The stakes are too high.

—Peter L. Stromberg, Malham M. Wakin, and Daniel Callahan

The Teaching of Ethics in the Military

A series of high-profile ethical lapses by senior military professionals has 

generated calls from levels as high as the commander in chief for a renewed 

emphasis on military ethics.1

 The Department of Defense (DOD) has taken a 

number of significant steps to address concerns about the apparent erosion of 

the military’s moral fabric, including the establishment of a list of desired 

leader attributes (DLA) that includes “the ability to make ethical decisions 

based on the shared values of the Profession of Arms.”2

 Leaders engaged in 

professional military education (PME) across the joint force have worked to 

ensure their programs support these DLAs. This paper explores and assesses 

the ethics education programs at the service senior leader colleges (hereafter 

referred to as war colleges).3

In order to develop an assessment, this paper begins with a review of three 

fundamental questions facing those charged with teaching ethics to senior 

military officers. What are the desired outcomes of ethics education? How 

should the curriculum be structured to achieve those outcomes? And, finally, what is the correct faculty composition to develop and employ that 

curriculum? The answers to those questions produce a rough framework for 

a model war college ethics-education program. The second portion of this 

paper compares the current war college programs to this model program to 

determine areas of strength and weakness. Finally, this paper concludes with 

recommendations for areas to be sustained and improved in the war college 

ethics-education programs.

Thesis

The existing ethics-education programs at the war colleges compare favorably to the model program structure. However, leaders at these institutions 

could further strengthen their programs by creating and empowering an ethics team that includes both trained ethicists and military practitioners and by 

conducting more robust faculty development programs for nonethicists.
2

Methodology

To answer key questions regarding the model structure of war college 

ethics programs, this paper begins with a review of the rationale for the 

military’s emphasis on ethics and then reviews the series of events that led 

to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) to call for a renewed emphasis on professionalism. It then establishes both the rationale for and appropriate objectives of war college ethics-education programs. A close examination of a wide body of literature from a number of professions provides 

the background for forming the model curriculum and faculty structure. 

Having established the model structure, this paper then compares it to the 

existing war college programs to identify areas of strength and weakness. 

This paper concludes with specific findings and recommendations regarding the existing war college ethics programs and suggestions for areas in 

need of further research.

Rationale for Military Emphasis on Ethics

In a 2012 white paper, CJCS Gen Martin Dempsey, US Army, called for a 

renewed commitment to the profession of arms, reminding the force, “Our 

profession is defined by our values, ethics, standards, code of conduct, skills, 

and attributes.”4

 The chairman’s reminder was in keeping with the long-held 

belief among American military leaders that “ethics, the study of reasoning 

about moral right and wrong, nurtures the moral consciousness and establishes the basis for right actions by military leaders.”5

Military ethics, as a subset of professional ethics, serves as a guide to 

members of the profession of arms as they “think through the moral challenges and dilemmas inherent in their professional activity.”6

 It shares similarities with other professions but is uniquely focused on those inherent 

moral issues of military service, namely the authority to kill or injure others. As one political theorist explains, “The great burden of military ethics 

lies in this: if those who control the power to kill and maim are evil or morally unfit, we unleash a torrent of sinister power.”7

 Leaders’ recognition of 

the potentially catastrophic consequences for our nation if members of the 

profession of arms lack moral fiber has been the driving force behind inclusion of military ethics in PME for generations. The recent call for renewed 

emphasis, though, largely derives from ethical misconduct among senior 

leaders.
3

An Ethical “Crisis” in the Military

High-level concerns about senior leader ethical misconduct emerged initially in 2012 in the wake of a series of revelations regarding inappropriate relationships, toxic command climates, bribery, and cheating by senior officers.8

Ethically Slipshod. In late 2012, reports surfaced that Gen David Petraeus had engaged 

in an extramarital affair while serving as the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan. The Petraeus incident might have been written off as exceptional were it not for a 

series of additional issues coming to light in the following months, including a sex and 

bribery scandal involving senior Navy officers, evidence of systemic cheating on nuclear 

weapons handling proficiency tests in both the Navy and Air Force, the Army’s courtmartial of Brig Gen Jeffrey Sinclair on charges of sexual assault and adultery, and the 

demotion of the former United States Africa Command commander, Gen William 

“Kip” Ward, following revelations that he had fraudulently used thousands of government dollars for unauthorized travel expenses.

The DOD responded quickly to what appeared to be a “crisis” among senior military leaders.9

 In November 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta 

directed the CJCS to conduct a review of ethical standards among senior military officers. The report indicated that ethics training needed to start earlier 

in an officer’s career and be reinforced more often over the course of that career.10 That finding contributed to General Dempsey’s decision to emphasize 

the role of PME in renewing the profession of arms. He published updated 

Joint Training Guidance in October 2013 that included the six DLAs, one of 

which was DLA no. 5: “The ability to make ethical decisions based on the 

shared values of the Profession of Arms.”11

Congress applauded the DOD initiatives to assess and improve the military’s ethical culture but questioned whether enough had been done to fix 

underlying problems. In May 2014, Congress directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the DOD’s ethics, professionalism, and 

integrity programs. The GAO report concluded that the “DOD is unable to 

determine whether its ethics and professionalism initiatives are achieving 

their intended effect because it has not developed metrics to measure their 

progress.”12 The combination of the GAO report and the official adoption of 

the DLAs into the Officer Professional Military Education Program in May 

2015 serves as a mandate to review existing ethics-education initiatives at all 

levels of PME. This paper focuses specifically on the war colleges, given their 

critical role in educating senior officers who ultimately hold responsibility for 

establishing an ethical climate across the force.
4

Rationale and Objectives 

for Ethics Education at War Colleges

At first glance, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that war college students require significant work in the area of ethics and professionalism. Officers selected for this level of schooling generally have between 18 and 22 years 

of service and, by virtue of their selection, represent the top 25 percent of 

their peer group. In theory, these officers have already internalized the need 

for military leaders to uphold ethical standards in order to maintain trust 

with the American public. Further, some might argue that the character of 

these officers is already firmly set; there is little that can be done at this stage 

of their careers to change or alter their moral compass.13 However, there are a 

number of compelling counterarguments to these claims.

The mission of war colleges is to prepare senior military and civilian leaders for service in strategic-level assignments.14 The idea, then, that senior officers are incapable of learning something new undermines the whole idea of 

PME across the career spectrum and flies in the face of significant research on 

adult learning. For example, a study of graduate students at Harvard Business 

School revealed “ample evidence that ethical consciousness and commitment 

can continue to undergo transformation at least throughout formal education.”15 As one longtime military ethics professor explains, “Our ethical development is lifelong; it is a process, never a product; it is never complete.”16 Beyond being capable of continued ethical growth, war colleges should focus on 

ethical development due to the influential positions their graduates will 

hold—both in the United States and in partner nations.

War college graduates go on to hold “high-level policy, command and staff 

responsibilities.”17 Their role as senior leaders who will make critical decisions 

and offer advice to civilian policy makers regarding the use of force demands 

a deep grounding in ethical reasoning. Martin Cook, currently the Admiral 

James B. Stockdale Professor of Professional Military Ethics at the Naval War 

College, explains, “Above all, strategic leaders who set large-scale military 

policy, control training and organizational culture, and supervise the preparation of operational plans for national militaries need to think in ways deeply 

conditioned by just war principles.”18 Additionally, the presence of a significant number of international officers at the war colleges presents an opportunity to build trust with key partners across the globe.19 Exposing international 

officers to the American military’s conception of moral structure and laws has 

the potential to “engender a common vocabulary and trust among partners 

that is so essential to building effective alliances.”20
5

Based on their capability for ongoing growth and development in ethical 

reasoning and their critical role as strategic leaders in both the United States 

and partner nations, war college students are a prime audience for a wellstructured ethics-education program. But just how should such a program be 

structured? What is it that the ethics-education programs at the war colleges 

should strive to achieve?

The authors of one classic study on military ethics education warn that 

educators should have realistic expectations. Classroom teaching on ethics 

can and should lay the foundation for ethical behavior in the future—but it 

cannot guarantee it. Rather, the classroom setting provides conditions for a 

formal and systematic evaluation of what the moral requirements of military 

leaders are.21 Instead of focusing primarily on future behavior, ethics education at the war colleges should have the goal of further developing senior officers’ ethical habits of mind. Realizing that, as career military officers, the 

student body is already predisposed to ethical decision making, war college 

ethics studies should “influence students to internalize ethics so they wield 

their ordained power in a legal and ethical manner . . . by enhancing their 

ability to recognize and process ethical dilemmas and execute prudent behavior in response to them.”22 The ethics education program should further develop officers’ existing ethical decision-making process and prepare them to 

apply that process at the strategic level. Importantly, the program must reinforce each officer’s crucial role in maintaining the vital link between the military’s ethical behavior and the nation’s willingness to entrust the military with 

lethal force. With these goals in mind, the war colleges can make appropriate 

decisions about the nature of the ethics curriculum and the appropriate faculty to develop and execute that curriculum.

Curriculum

Ethics programs cannot escape the truism that, at its core, curriculum development often comes down to making hard choices. Two major questions 

should drive decision making. First, should ethics be taught as a discrete subject or should it be integrated across the curriculum? Secondly, what is the 

correct balance between general philosophy and practical application of that 

philosophy within the profession of arms? A review of research by ethics educators from within the military and from other professions can serve as a 

guide to making difficult curricular decisions.

Ethics-education scholars have long debated the question of whether ethics education is more effective as a stand-alone course versus integration 

across the curriculum. A full review of the contours of this debate is beyond 
6

the scope of this paper, but a basic outline of the pros and cons for each approach helps shed light on the issue. The benefits of teaching ethics as a discrete subject at the outset of a graduate program is that it provides students 

with a foundation upon which they can build in their other classes as they 

progress through the program. Placing a foundational course up front in the 

program also sends an important signal to the student body about the subject’s relative significance. 23 This approach presupposes that the stand-alone 

course is taught by either a trained ethicist or faculty that has undergone extensive development with a trained ethicist.24 Additionally, this approach assumes that faculty members who are expected to build on the ethics foundation in other courses understand what was taught in the foundational course 

and have been given the tools and training to build on that in their courses.25

The question of faculty competence plays largely into decisions about the 

structure of the curriculum.

Arguments in favor of integrating ethics across the curriculum include 

sending a message to the student body that ethics plays a role in every aspect 

of the profession and ensuring that students learn to recognize ethical aspects 

of a given scenario. By separating ethics out as a discrete course, students may 

get the impression that ethics is something to be discussed only in the abstract 

while failing to make the requisite practical application of ethical principles 

within the profession.26 Learning to recognize the ethical implications of a 

given situation should be one of the premier goals of an ethics-education program. Failure to integrate ethics across the curriculum would undermine this 

goal. For example, in a war college setting where students regularly debate the 

strategic merits of humanitarian intervention, strategic bombing, and use of 

nuclear weapons, recognizing the ethical implications in each of those scenarios must be deliberately built into the desired learning objectives. Again, 

the competence and willingness of all faculty members to engage in such discussions are of paramount importance.

While there is no clear consensus on this issue, several studies recommend 

a combination of the two approaches.27 Programs should provide students 

with a foundational ethics course (or block) at the start of the program and 

then integrate ethics across the curriculum, with emphasis on providing all 

faculty members the tools and training to properly lead a discussion on the 

implications of ethical issues as they arise in their courses. Many of these 

studies further recommend surrounding the formal curriculum with extracurricular initiatives such as guest speakers, brown-bag lunches, and ethics 

symposiums.28 Events of this nature serve to reinforce the institution’s commitment to the primacy of ethics and provide further opportunities for students to develop ethical reasoning skills outside of the classroom. A final rec-
7

ommendation is to offer electives that give interested students an opportunity 

to delve deeper into philosophy.29 This recommendation, again, depends on 

the availability of qualified faculty to teach such electives.

The second major area of consideration for curriculum development involves striking the correct balance between general philosophy and applied 

ethics. One of the leading advocates for a greater emphasis on classical philosophy was Vice Adm James Stockdale, who found his study of the classics to 

be of tremendous aid to him during his time as a prisoner of war during the 

Vietnam War.30 More recently, Rear Adm Walter Carter, president of the US 

Naval War College, advocated for greater study of classical philosophical texts 

because “a fuller understanding of ethics beyond compliance rests on the 

foundations of moral philosophy.”31 Looking specifically at senior officer education, Martin Cook asserts, “It is important that senior leaders understand 

just war more deeply and see that the positive laws of war emerge from a long 

tradition that rests on fundamental moral principles.”32 While advocating 

strongly for grounding military ethics in classical philosophy, these leaders 

also recognize that a military ethics-education program must address practical application of philosophical principles to service in the profession of arms.

The most common approach to applied ethics is the use of case studies.33

Two important issues emerge from the literature on using case studies to 

teach ethics. The first is that the case study must present an actual moral dilemma (a choice between two “goods”), and the second is that the faculty 

member employing the case study in his or her class must have adequate 

background in ethics to facilitate the discussion.34 The most relevant and 

morally challenging case study in the world will fail to be useful to students 

without a qualified instructor to facilitate the discussion.35 As with the debate 

over stand-alone courses versus integration across the curriculum, faculty 

competence plays an important role in selecting and utilizing appropriate 

case studies.

Faculty

The major consideration with regard to faculty involves balancing the utilization of trained ethicists along with practitioners to meet the war colleges’ 

twin objectives of enhancing students’ moral reasoning skills and preparing 

them for the ethical dilemmas they are most likely to encounter at the strategic level. A review of the existing scholarship on this issue makes clear three 

interrelated points. First, it is incorrect to assume that uniformed faculty 

members are automatically prepared to teach ethics based on their experience 

as members of the profession of arms. Military expertise does not necessarily 
8

translate to ethics education competency.36 One experienced educator warns 

that military officers are deeply conditioned to a training model of education 

that involves a technical approach to problem solving. This approach is particularly ill-suited to ethics education, which is much more effectively taught 

through Socratic dialogue.37

Secondly, faculty development and commitment are simultaneously the 

most challenging and most important components of a successful ethics education program, especially one that employs the integration across the curriculum approach.38 And, finally, trained ethicists are a critical resource for 

developing curriculum, training other faculty members in the art of Socratic 

dialogue, creating effective assessment tools, and coordinating extracurricular ethics initiatives.39

Given these three considerations, an effective war college ethics program 

would ideally be headed by a senior military officer who also is a trained ethicist or by a combination of civilian academically trained ethicists and military officers with experience in the practical application of ethical principles 

at the strategic level.40 In a program that employs the “ethics across the curriculum” approach described in the preceding section, all faculty members 

would undergo extensive faculty-development workshops with the trained 

ethicists to learn how best to assist students with recognizing ethical implications of given scenarios and to facilitate small-group discussions on ethical 

decision making and case-study analysis. This is a tall order for a number of 

reasons. Faculty members focused on teaching in their area of expertise (such 

as history, international relations, or national security) may be uncomfortable 

and/or unenthusiastic about taking time away from their subjects to discuss 

ethics. Additionally, faculty turnover in the war colleges, particularly among 

military faculty, is high, so faculty-development efforts would have to be sustained and supported from year to year—a significant challenge given the 

need to balance time spent in collective faculty development sessions with 

each instructor’s individual course-preparation requirements.41

Importantly, though, the challenge of sustained faculty development 

does not in any way negate the significant negative implications of failing to 

adequately prepare instructors to identify and address ethical issues in their 

respective classes. Specifically, an instructor who fails to address ethical issues in his or her classroom sends the signal to students that ethics is either 

unimportant or a subject to be discussed only in the abstract. Worse, an 

instructor who lacks adequate ethics background and/or enthusiasm for the 

topic is likely to mishandle the subject of ethics when it arises, creating either cynicism or confusion among students.42 Ways to mitigate the chal-
9

lenges associated with faculty development are discussed in the recommendations section.

The Model War College Ethics Program 

The preceding sections have produced a rough answer to one of this paper’s 

fundamental questions regarding the model curriculum and faculty structure 

for a US war college ethics-education program. This model program should 

be developed by an ethics team that includes trained ethicists and military 

officers with significant experience at the strategic level. It should include a 

stand-alone block of instruction at the beginning of the 10-month experience, signaling the important place of ethics education in the institution’s priorities. This stand-alone block should include instruction by the trained ethicist on the philosophical foundations of military ethics and presentation by 

senior military practitioners of actual moral dilemmas they encountered at 

the strategic level. Students ought to be required to produce some type of 

deliverable (written paper, case study analysis, or oral presentation) that entails demonstration of their ability to recognize an ethical dilemma and apply 

their personal ethical decision-making model.

Beyond the stand-alone block, ethics should be integrated across the rest of 

the curriculum. The ethics team should assist course directors with recognizing the ethical implications in their classes and further assist in conducting 

faculty development workshops that educate specialists from a variety of disciplines in facilitating discussions of ethical issues. Again, command emphasis is essential. All members of the institution, from the dean to the course 

directors to the individual instructors, must come to internalize their obligation to address ethical issues as they arise in classes and—more importantly—

to understand the regrettable signal it sends to students when they fail to do 

so.43 Outside of the stand-alone block and the integration of ethics across the 

curriculum, each institution ought to look for ways to keep students (and faculty) engaged on the subject of ethics through a robust program of extracurricular events such as guest speakers, brown-bag lunches, and symposiums/

summits. Finally, the war colleges should offer a number of ethics-related 

electives for those students interested in a deeper understanding of this important subject.
10

Current War College Ethics-Education 

Programs as Compared to the Model

The programs currently in place at the war colleges generally compare favorably to the model program outlined above.44 In terms of curriculum structure, the Naval War College (NWC), Army War College (USAWC), and Air 

War College (AWC) all teach from six to nine dedicated contact hours on 

ethics as part of their leadership courses but primarily employ an “ethics 

across the curriculum” approach. With a significantly smaller student body 

(30 students versus 200–300 at the other service schools), the Marine Corps 

War College (MCWAR) teaches ethics as a stand-alone block (16.5 contact 

hours) near the beginning of the “Leadership and Ethics” course. MCWAR 

also integrates ethics across the remaining curriculum, with the dean and 

each of the three course directors each teaching ethics-related classes. All four 

institutions offer ethics-related electives, although the number of available 

courses varies based on number of available faculty.

In terms of faculty, both MCWAR and NWC have an ethics team working 

on curriculum and faculty development.45 Due to recent drawdowns, USAWC 

currently has only one trained ethicist (an active-duty Army chaplain) who 

develops the ethics curriculum and trains 23 other faculty members on the 

specific classes involving ethics.46 Prior to October 2015, AWC lacked a 

trained ethicist on the faculty and relied on the Joint Strategic Leadership 

course director to develop the ethics curriculum. AWC typically brought in a 

trained ethicist from a nearby civilian university to conduct faculty development once a year. AWC’s parent organization, Air University (AU), hired a 

trained ethicist in October 2015 as part of the AU Distance Learning Program 

who, ideally, will assist with AWC’s ethics-education program in the future.

Most of the war colleges surround their formal programs with extracurricular events focused on ethics and professionalism. For example, MCWAR 

regularly conducts a “Directors Call” during which the MCWAR director 

meets with students to discuss professionalism-related topics. Additionally, 

MCWAR utilizes its “Perspectives in Leadership” series to bring in five different general officers to discuss the practical application of military ethics at the 

strategic level. Both NWC and USAWC conduct ethics-focused symposiums 

(three per year at NWC and two per year at USAWC). AWC lacks a formal 

extracurricular initiative but utilizes its Commandant’s Lecture Series to expose students to general officers who often speak about the unique challenges 

they have faced in the strategic environment.
11

Findings and Recommendations

The comparison of the existing war college ethics-education programs to 

the model program described above reveals significant strengths in many areas. The Marine Corps’s decision to embed a stand-alone block of instruction 

on ethics in the first portion of the Leadership and Ethics Course provides a 

clear message to the student body that ethics is important to the institution 

and viewed by senior leaders as the foundation for the rest of the curriculum. 

In the case of both MCWAR and NWC, the use of an ethics team to develop 

curriculum and promote faculty development is evidence of strong command emphasis and corresponding resourcing for the ethics-education program. The extracurricular initiatives at MCWAR, NWC, and USAWC are an 

effective means of reinforcing the significance of ethics and providing students the opportunity to hear from senior leaders and reflect upon strategiclevel issues outside of the formal classroom setting. Along with revealing 

strengths of the existing programs, this assessment also identified areas in 

need of improvement.

Both USAWC and AWC could benefit from hiring or gaining access to additional trained ethicists to work with military practitioners in order to develop a more robust ethics team. Additionally, AWC’s lack of extracurricular 

ethics initiatives suggests that ethics education is not an institutional priority. 

Creating an annual ethics symposium or a series of panel discussions with 

senior leaders would strengthen AWC’s program. AWC is currently the only 

program that does not require an ethics-focused deliverable such as a written 

paper, case study analysis, or oral competence exam. Again, greater command 

involvement and the creation and empowerment of a dedicated ethics team 

could help address these shortfalls. 

The two greatest challenges facing USAWC, NWC, and AWC are ensuring 

that ethics is properly integrated across the curriculum and that all faculty 

members are prepared and enthusiastic about discussing ethical issues as they 

arise in their classes.47 For these three institutions that primarily employ the 

“ethics across the curriculum” approach, faculty commitment and development are essential to each program’s success.

How can the war colleges best mitigate the challenges associated with faculty development? First and foremost, senior war college leaders (deans and 

commandants) must establish ethics education as a priority for the institution. Command emphasis is essential to broad-based faculty commitment 

and empowerment of the ethics team. Second, the war colleges should conduct a “barriers study” as outlined by those responsible for establishing the 

Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Responsibility Initiative at Harvard Busi-
12

ness School.48 This type of study involves bringing in faculty from all disciplines to determine the most significant barriers to incorporating ethics into 

their courses. Having identified the barriers, the ethics team is then able to 

develop levers or strategies for overcoming those barriers. At Harvard, for 

example, one of the levers developed to overcome the barrier of junior faculty’s discomfort with teaching outside of their area of expertise was the establishment of teaching groups that provided “powerful opportunities for raising 

awareness and creating norms among new and continuing faculty around the 

integration of ethics into the management curriculum.”49 Importantly, use of 

a barriers study holds the potential to generate broad-based faculty ownership of the ethics-education program.

Additionally, war college leaders should continue to support and encourage involvement of their ethics teams in collaborative events with others involved in professionalism initiatives such as the Joint PME (JPME) Ethics 

Working Group, a semi-annual gathering of leaders from across the PME 

spectrum to exchange ideas and discuss challenges. Additionally, representatives from each of the war colleges should routinely be invited to attend and 

participate in the ethics symposiums hosted by fellow institutions. Events of 

this sort allow educators to learn of the work being done by their colleagues 

at other institutions and to discuss challenges and issues associated with ethics education.

Finally, the war college accrediting body, the Process Accreditation of Joint 

Education (PAJE), should incorporate the model structure outlined in this 

paper into its accreditation process. With guidance from the Joint Staff director for Joint Force Development (J-7), PAJE conducts a comprehensive review 

of all JMPE institutions every six years.50 Moving forward, the PAJE team 

should include a trained ethicist to look specifically at the ethics-education 

component of the war colleges. With the right subject matter experts as part 

the team, PAJE can provide the war colleges important insights into the quality of their ethics programs.

Conclusion

This paper followed a two-pronged approach to create the structure for a 

model war college ethics-education program. First, it reviewed the rationale 

for military ethics and, specifically, examined the need for senior officers to be 

grounded in both classical philosophy and the practical application of that 

philosophy to ethical decision making and moral reasoning in the military. 

Second, it drew on ethics-education scholarship from a wide variety of professional disciplines. This review of literature facilitated identification of best 
13

practices in the areas of curriculum and faculty. Beyond the scope of this paper, but very much in need of additional research, is the issue of assessment. 

How can the war colleges determine whether their programs are meeting established objectives? A review of the broad scope of ethics-education scholarship from other disciplines could provide a starting point for more research in 

this critical area. Additionally, more research is needed to determine whether 

the model structure outlined here is applicable at other levels of JPME. 

Comparing the existing programs to a model structure revealed strengths 

and weaknesses in the war college ethics programs. War college leaders are 

well served to review and, where appropriate, adopt the best practices from 

other civilian and military institutions. For those areas in need of improvement, particularly the lack of adequately robust ethics teams and faculty development programs for nonethicists, now is the time for war college leaders 

to provide command emphasis and resources to enhance and expand their 

existing programs.

There is, perhaps, no level of PME at which ethics education is more important than the war colleges, due to the influential positions these officers 

will hold as they return to the operational force. As one group of scholars 

explains, “If at the influential levels of power in the armed forces moral reasoning is faulty or nonexistent, the military and America are in trouble. Commitment to the teaching and learning of ethics at the bottom of the military 

hierarchy will sustain itself only if junior leaders see evidence of good moral 

reasoning at the top.”51 Strengthening existing war college ethics programs 

requires a significant investment of scarce resources, including time, money, 

and institutional energy. However, given the mandate from our nation’s most 

senior leaders to renew the profession of arms, an investment in senior leaders is worth the cost. War college graduates play an essential role in establishing an ethical climate across the joint force and in maintaining trust between 

the military and the American public. The institutions charged with producing leaders capable of and committed to upholding the ethical standards of 

the profession of arms must strive to be the home to the nation’s premier 

ethics-education programs.

Notes

(Notes appear in shortened form except where indicated. For full details, see the appropriate 

entry in the bibliography.)

1. Craig Whitlock, “Military Brass, Behaving Badly: Files Detail a Spate of Misconduct 

Dogging Armed Forces,” Washington Post, 26 January 2014. In addition to detailing senior officer misconduct, this article cites an e-mail from Caitlin Hayden, a White House spokes-
14

woman, indicating that President Barack Obama “conveyed to the Secretary of Defense and the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that instances of senior general and flag officers not living 

up to these standards must be addressed effectively.” 

It is worth noting that, across the DOD, terms/phrases such as “military ethics,” “professionalism,” and “the professional military ethic” are often used interchangeably. This usage is 

problematic in that it conflates related but distinct concepts. Work needs to be done to disentangle these terms and provide greater clarity to what exactly is meant by each. For example, is 

the personal conduct of an individual officer necessarily part of military ethics, or is the latter 

primarily concerned with how the military prosecutes war? Does it naturally follow that an 

officer’s personal character is causally related to his or her ability to follow the principles of the 

just war tradition? When the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) called for a renewed 

emphasis on professionalism, was he talking about the personal conduct of senior leaders or 

adherence to the laws of armed conflict, or both? Unfortunately, this important project of disentanglement exceeds the scope of this paper, but it is worth acknowledging the problem of 

muddied terminology and admitting that this paper is guilty of failing to adequately distinguish among these terms.

2. CJCS, OPMEP, A-3. 

3. As defined in the OPMEP, the service senior leader colleges include the Air War College 

(AWC), US Army War College (USAWC), Naval War College (NWC), and the Marine Corps 

War College (MCWAR). Other senior service colleges that fall under the umbrella of National 

Defense University are also governed by the OPMEP but have a slightly different charter and 

thus different guidance. While this paper is particularly focused on the service senior leader 

colleges, many of the implications are equally applicable to the other senior service college 

programs. For a breakdown of the guidance to these various programs, see OPMEP. 

4. CJCS, “America’s Military.”

5. Stromberg, Wakin, and Callahan, Teaching of Ethics, 1.

6. Cook and Syse, “What Should We Mean,” 119.

7. Toner, True Faith and Allegiance, 134.

8. For a summary of these incidents, see Whitlock, “Military Brass, Behaving Badly.” See

also, Editorial, “What the Air Force Can Learn from the Nuclear Cheating Scandal,” Washington Post, 6 April 2014; Sam Lagrone, “Navy Expels 34 Sailors in Nuclear Cheating Scandal,” 

USNI News, 20 August 2014, http://news.usni.org/2014/08/20/navy-expels-34-sailors-nucl

ear-cheating-scandal; and “4-Star Who Headed AFRICOM Demoted,” Army Times, 13 November 2012.

9. James Joyner, “The US Military’s Ethics Crisis,” National Interest, 13 February 2014, 

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-us-militarys-ethics-crisis-9872.

10. Cheryl Pellerin, “Panetta Directs Review of Officers’ Culture of Stewardship,” DOD 

News, 15 November 2012, http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118551. See

also Jim Garamone, “Panetta Briefs President on Dempsey Ethics Findings,” DOD News, 7 

December 2012, http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118741.

11. CJCS, Chairman’s Joint Training Guidance. Additionally, in early 2014, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel expressed concern that systemic issues may be degrading the “health of the 

force” and, in turn, undermining the public’s trust in the military. He created the position of 

senior advisor for military professionalism, appointing RADM Margaret Klein to that post, in 

order to coordinate DOD’s efforts on professionalism. See Jennifer Hlad, “Hagel Appoints Top 

Ethics Officer,” Stars and Stripes, 25 March 2014, http://www.stripes.com/news/hagel-appoin

ts-top-ethics-officer-1.274483.
15

12. US Government Accounting Office, Additional Steps Are Needed.

13. For an articulation and subsequent refutation of this argument, see Major, Deremer, 

and Bolgiano, “Ethics Can Be Taught,” 58.

14. OPMEP, E-D-1.

15. Piper, Gentile, and Parks, Can Ethics Be Taught?, 13.

16. Toner, “Mistakes in Teaching Ethics,” 46.

17. OPMEP, E-D-1.

18. Cook, The Moral Warrior, 37.

19. Major, “Ethics Education of Military Leaders,” 59. 

20. Ibid.

21. Stromberg, Wakin, and Callahan, Teaching of Ethics, 48–49. The authors explain that 

establishing the unattainable goal of producing leaders who always live up to the ethical standards of the profession can have significant negative consequences. Specifically, it can lead to 

“unrealistic modes of evaluation, and, ultimately, general disillusionment that the venture has 

any value at all” (ibid., 43). In other words, program goals based and measured primarily on 

future behavior could lead to the ethical failures of a few undermining the ethical development 

of many. For more on the goal of ethics education being development of moral reasoning skills 

rather than practice of ethical behavior, see Vynickier et al., “Effectiveness of Ethics Education,” 

303; and Callahan and Bok, Ethics Teaching in Higher Education, 69–70.

22. Major, “Ethics Education of Military Leaders,” 56.

23. For a superb discussion of the stand-alone versus integrated across the curriculum debate, see Hartman and Hartman, “How to Teach Ethics,” 170–72. For another perspective written by a literature professor based on her experiences incorporating ethics into nonethics 

courses, see Susan Resneck Parr, “The Teaching of Ethics in Undergraduate Nonethics Courses,” 

in Callahan and Bok, Ethics Teaching in Higher Education, 191–203.

24. Dean, Beggs, and Fornaciari, “Teaching Ethics and Accreditation,” 7. The researchers in 

this study concluded that the instructor must possess “ethics competency,” which they define as 

“the possession of background in enduring philosophical thought in ethics, such as the moral 

foundations of Kant, Aristotle, Socrates, Rawls, and so forth.”

25. Piper, Gentile, and Parks, Can Ethics be Taught?, 107.

26. Ibid., 127–28. See also Hartman and Hartman, “How to Teach Ethics,” 170.

27. See Piper, Gentile, and Parks, Can Ethics Be Taught?, 118 and 127; Hartman and Hartman, “How to Teach Ethics,” 171–73; and Dean, Beggs, and Fornaciari, “Teaching Ethics and 

Accreditation,” 10. 

28. See Piper, Gentile, and Parks, Can Ethics Be Taught?, 118 and 127; and Dean, Beggs, and 

Fornaciari, “Teaching Ethics and Accreditation,” 10. Both of these studies also recommend surrounding the formal curriculum with extracurricular initiatives. Specific recommendations 

about extracurricular initiatives can also be found in Major, DeRemer, and Bolgiano, “Ethics 

Can Be Taught,” 61.

29. Major, DeRemer, and Bolgiano, “Ethics Can Be Taught,” 61.

30. Cook, The Moral Warrior, 47.

31. Carter, “Ethics in the US Navy,” paper written in support of the Navy Leader Development Continuum and Strategy (US Naval War College, Newport, RI, March, 2014), 7. For a 

similar argument in favor of studying the classics, see, Major, DeRemer, and Bolgiano, “Ethics 

Can Be Taught,” 61.

32. Cook, The Moral Warrior, 22.
16

33. Focusing specifically on senior leaders, Cook argues that “discussion of complex cases 

among peers is the most effective approach to improving skills for moral reasoning . . . insuring 

such discussions are a part of PME at the most senior levels is vital.” Cook, “Professional Military Ethics,” 12. For additional discussion of the need for practical application, see Hoivik, 

“Learning Experiences,” 240. According to one survey of nursing students, students reported 

gaining little from purely philosophical discussions but found courses that focused on applied 

ethics through the use of case studies to be highly beneficial. Specifically, the researchers concluded, “Indeed, our results and those from previous studies clearly indicate that linking ethics 

with daily practices is important.” See Vynickier et al., “Effectiveness of Ethics Education,” 

303–4.

34. For a discussion on the importance of using case studies that involve actual moral dilemmas, see Robinson, “Ethics Training and Development,” 31; Major, “Ethics Education of 

Military Leaders,” 60; and Quesenberry et al., “Ethics Assessment,” 53. For the need for faculty 

competence, see Dean, Beggs, and Fornaciari, “Teaching Ethics and Accreditation,” 10; and 

Hartman and Hartman, “How to Teach Ethics,” 171–72.

35. Toner, “Mistakes in Teaching Ethics,” 49. Toner explains, “I do not argue that good curricula are unimportant; of course they are. But good teachers create good curricula; good curricula, of themselves, cannot make good teachers.”

36. Johnson-Freese, Educating America’s Military, 81. 

37. Miller, “Squaring the Circle,” 206–8.

38. For works that emphasize this point, see Stromberg, Wakin, and Callahan, The Teaching 

of Ethics in the Military,” 67; Norman, “Put an Ethicist on the Team!,” 263; and Piper, Gentile, 

and Parks, Can Ethics Be Taught?, 132. 

39. I define a “trained ethicist” as one who holds an advanced degree (MA or PhD) in philosophy. For superb discussions of the benefits of incorporating trained ethicists into an ethics 

education program, see Miller, “Squaring the Circle,” 213; Hartman and Hartman, “How to 

Teach Ethics,” 172; and Norman, “Put an Ethicist on the Team,” 258 and 262. On the specific 

issue of developing rubrics for assessment of student case-study analyses, see Keefer et al, “Importance of Formative Assessment,” 251; and Quesenberry et al., “Ethics Assessment,” 208.

40. Stromberg, Wakin, and Callahan, Teaching of Ethics, 61. These authors make a unique 

recommendation regarding faculty for intermediate and senior PME. Specifically, they recommend that the staff and war colleges hire senior officers who, while they were junior officers, 

received advanced degrees in philosophy in preparation for teaching at the military academies. 

In theory, these officers would have rotated back out to the operational force following their 

teaching assignments at the academies and gained additional exposure to likely ethical dilemmas, thus being uniquely prepared to teach ethics to other senior officers. In short, they recommend that the services each look to build a nucleus of trained ethicists who are available to 

teach at each level of PME (ibid., 67, 73).

41. A number of works discuss the need and challenges associated with faculty development. Specifically, see Dean, Beggs, and Fornaciari, “Teaching Ethics and Accreditation,” 9–10; 

Norman, “Put an Ethicist on the Team!,” 263; and Robinson, “Ethics Training and Development in the Military,” 29. 

42. Dean, Beggs, and Fornaciari, “Teaching Ethics and Accreditation,” 9–10; Hartman 

and Hartman, “How to Teach Ethics,” 170–72; and Piper, Gentile, and Parks, Can Ethics Be 

Taught?, 95. As Joseph P. Miller explains, poorly led ethical discussions could potentially produce officers who “make moral decisions about false dilemmas using mechanical decision 
17

matrices that are based on partially formed and poorly understood intuitions.” Miller, “Squaring the Circle,” 210.

43. For the powerful signal sent by the omission of ethics, see Piper, Gentile, and Parks, 

Can Ethics Be Taught?, 6. See also Norman, “Put an Ethicist on the Team!,” 263; and Dean, 

Beggs, and Fornaciari, “Teaching Ethics and Accreditation,” 9–10.

44. My knowledge of the current programs in place at the four US war colleges is based on 

information that I received from those responsible for the ethics education program at each 

institution. Between October and November 2015, I informally solicited and received their 

feedback on curriculum, faculty, assessment procedures, and extracurricular initiatives. Gene 

Kamena, course director, Joint Strategic Leadership, Air War College, e-mail to the author, 27 

October 15; Chaplain (Col) John L. Kallerson, professor of ethics, US Army War College, email to the author, 13 November 2015; Thomas J. Gibbons, associate professor, US Naval War 

College, e-mail to the author, 16 November 2015; and Col Chris Thompson, director, Marine 

Corps War College Leadership and Ethics, e-mail to the author, 20 November 2015. 

45. MCWAR benefits from access to trained ethicists at Marine Corps University and the 

extensive utilization of senior leaders (mostly general officers) and outside speakers. NWC’s 

“ethics team” includes trained ethicists from the College of Operational and Strategic Leadership that falls under the NWC umbrella. Additionally, NWC benefits from having established 

the Admiral James Bond Stockdale Chair of Professional Military Ethics in 2006.

46. USAWC previously had three trained ethicists on the faculty. However, one of the two 

military ethicists departed as a result of the Army’s FY14 Selective Early Retirement Board for 

Colonels. USAWC eliminated the civilian ethicist position when it was forced to cut ten Title 

10 professor positions in 2014–15. Kallerson, e-mail to the author, 16 December 2015.

47. With only 30 students and eight faculty members, MCWAR faces fewer challenges with 

ethics integration and faculty training. Combining its relatively small size with clear command 

emphasis, ethics is currently thoroughly integrated across the curriculum at MCWAR.

48. For a full discussion of the barriers study at Harvard, see Piper, Gentile, and Parks, 

“Engaging the Power and Competence of the Faculty,” Can Ethics Be Taught?, 73–115.

49. Ibid., 90.

50. For a complete overview of the PAJE process, see OPMEP, Appendix F: Process for Accreditation of Joint Education.

51. Stromberg, Wakin, and Callahan, Teaching of Ethics, 6.

19

Bibliography

Allen, Charles D. “Quo Vadis? The Education of Senior Military Officers.” 

Joint Forces Quarterly 78, no. 3 (2015): 40–43.

Callahan, Daniel and Sissela Bok, eds. Ethics Teaching in Higher Education. 

New York: Plenum Press, 1980.

Carter, Rear Adm Walter E., Jr. “Ethics in the Navy.” Paper written in support 

of the Navy Leader Development Continuum and Strategy. US Naval War 

College. Newport, RI, March 2014. 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) White Paper, “America’s Military—A Profession of Arms,” 23 February 2012.

CJCS Instruction 1800.01E. Officer Professional Military Education Policy 

(OPMEP), 29 May 2015, http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/education/offi

cer_JPME/cjcsi1800_01e.pdf.

CJCS Notice 3500.01, 2014–2017 Chairman’s Joint Training Guidance, 10 October 2013.

Cook, Martin L. Issues in Military Ethics: To Support and Defend the Constitution. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2013.

———. The Moral Warrior: Ethics and Service in the U.S. Military. Albany: 

State University of New York Press, 2004.

———. “Professional Military Ethics across the Career Spectrum.” Paper presented at the Fort Leavenworth Ethics Symposium, 15 November 2010, 

and published in Wiggins, Mark H. and Chaplain (Maj.) Larry Dabeck, 

eds. Fort Leavenworth Ethics Symposium: Exploring the Professional Military Ethic, Symposium Report. Fort Leavenworth, KS: CGSC Foundation 

Press, 2011.

Cook, Martin L. and Henrik Syse. “What Should We Mean by ‘Military Ethics’?” Journal of Military Ethics 9, no. 2 (2010): 119–22.

Dean, Kathy Lund, Jeri Mullins Beggs, and Charles J. Fornaciari. “Teaching 

Ethics and Accreditation: Faculty Competence, Methods, and Assessment.” Journal of Business Ethics Education 4 (2007): 5–26.

Gibbons, Thomas J. “A Uniform Code of Military Ethics.” Paper presented at the 

Fort Leavenworth Ethics Symposium. Fort Leavenworth, KS, May 2015.

Hartman, Laura P. and Edwin M. Hartman. “How to Teach Ethics: Assumptions and Arguments.” Journal of Business Ethics Education 1, no. 2 (2004): 

165–212.

Hoivik, Heidi von Weltzien. “Learning Experiences from Designing and 

Teaching a Mandatory MBA Course on Ethics and Leadership.” Journal 

of Business Ethics 1, no. 2 (2004): 239–56.
20

Johnson-Freese, Joan. Educating America’s Military. New York: Routledge, 2013.

Keefer, Matthew W., Sara E. Wilson, Harry Dankowicz, and Michael C. Loui. 

“The Importance of Formative Assessment in Science and Engineering 

Ethics Education: Some Evidence and Practical Advice.” Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (2014): 249–60.

Lucas, George R., Jr. and W. Rick Rubel, eds. Ethics and the Military Profession: 

The Moral Foundations of Leadership. 4th ed. Boston: Pearson Learning 

Solutions, 2011.

Major, A. Edward. “Ethics Education of Military Leaders.” Military Review 94, 

no. 2 (March–April 2014): 55–60.

Major, A. Edward, Lee DeRemer, and David G. Bolgiano. “Ethics Can Be 

Taught.” United States Naval Institute Proceedings 138, no. 12 (December 

2012): 58–62.

Miller, Joseph J. “Squaring the Circle: Teaching Philosophical Ethics in the 

Military.” Journal of Military Ethics 3, no. 3 (2004): 199–215.

Norman, Wayne. “Put an Ethicist on the Team! A Promising but Neglected 

‘Third Way’ to Teach Ethics in a Business School.” Journal of Business 

Ethics Education 1, no. 2 (2004): 257–74.

Piper, Thomas R., Marcy C. Gentile, and Sharon Daloz Parks. Can Ethics Be 

Taught? Perspectives, Challenges, and Approaches at Harvard Business 

School. Boston: Harvard Business School, 1993.

Quesenberry, Le Gene, Jamie Phillips, Paul Woodburne, and Chin Yang. 

“Ethics Assessment in a General Education Programme.” Assessment and 

Evaluation in Higher Education 37, no. 2 (March 2012): 193–213.

Rhodes, Bill. An Introduction to Military Ethics: A Reference Handbook. Santa 

Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2009.

Robinson, Paul. “Ethics Training and Development in the Military.” Parameters 37, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 23–36.

Robinson, Paul, Nigel DeLee, and Don Carrick, eds. Ethics Education in the 

Military. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2008.

Stromberg, Peter L., Malham M. Wakin, and Daniel Callahan. The Teaching 

of Ethics in the Military. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Institute of Society, 

Ethics, and the Life Sciences, 1982.

The Teaching of Ethics in Higher Education. A Report by the Hastings Center. 

Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences, 1980.

Toner, James H. “Mistakes in Teaching Ethics.” Airpower Journal 12, no. 2 

(Summer 1998): 45–51.

———. True Faith and Allegiance: The Burden of Military Ethics. Lexington: 

University Press of Kentucky, 1995.
21

US Government Accountability Office. Military Personnel: Additional Steps 

Are Needed to Strengthen DOD’s Oversight of Ethics and Professionalism 

Issues. GAO-15-711. Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office, September 2015.

Vynickier, Tine, Chris Gastmans, Nancy Cannaerts, and Bernadette Dierckx 

de Casterle. “Effectiveness of Ethics Education as Perceived by Nursing 

Students: Development and Testing of a Novel Assessment Instrument.” 

Nursing Ethics 22, no. 3 (2015): 287–306.

West, Jerry. “A Holistic Approach for Institutionalizing JF 2020 Leader Development.” In Changing Mindsets to Transform Security: Leader Development for an Unpredictable and Complex World, ed. Linton Wells, Theodore C. Hailes, and Michael C. Davies, 171–86. Washington, DC: Center 

for Technology and National Security Policy, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, 2013.

Wiggins, Mark H. and Larry Dubeck, eds. Fort Leavenworth Ethics Symposium: Exploring the Professional Military Ethic. Symposium Report. Fort 

Leavenworth, KS: CGSC Foundation Press, 2011.