TRAGEDY IN TUDORTOWN

Submitted by: Bhreagh MacDonald

Found At: http://www.edusim.net/main/freesims.htm

Materials Needed: Computer for use of the Excel spreadsheet(s)

Time: 40-50 minutes

Number of Participants: 4-5 per group or as one large group

Curriculum Outcomes:

General Aims, Public Education, Social Studies:

Develop the ability to think clearly
Communicate effectively
Make sound judgments
Discriminate among values

General Aims, Global Studies:

Develop frameworks within which to consider global conditions and global issues

Specific Goals, Global Geography:

Respect diversity among the world cultures and to acknowledge various perspectives on human and natural environments, and on global affairs and issues that are generated by cultural diversity.

Specific Goals, Global History:

To help students to recognize that human choices (at both the individual and collective level, at the local, national, and international level, in the past, present, and the future) affect fellow humans both at home and abroad.

(Nova Scotia Department of Education Curriculum Depot)

Goal

This is a simulated, role-playing discussion and decision-making exercise that addresses the issues of security in an age of terrorist threats. The exercise is designed to get groups/communities thinking about how to make their environment more secure, but also examines the issue of balancing security vs. freedom, and ways to pursue a significant degree of effectiveness in each. Although the exercise is realistic in its situation and presentation of issues, it is not intended to serve as a primer for anti-terrorism. It is instead, an exercise that can serve as the starting point for discussion and decision-making within a community in their quest to increase their general safety. It is also intended as an exercise to explore some of the issues that occur within these types of situations.

David Reid's Note on Revisions for Canadian Context:

Why make Tudortown the victim of an anti-American religious fanatic? Students in Canada might be more interested in a Canadian context for the simulation. In a Canadian context another threat would be more plausible. Recent history suggests that biker gangs, anti-women fanatics and militant freedom fighters /rebels bringing their overseas conflicts to Canadian immigrant communities are real threats to our safety.

Facilitating the Simulation:

Background

This exercise is both a group discussion and decision-making exercise. The simulation works best with small groups of 4-5 persons. The exercise is designed to simulate the kinds of security discussions/decision-making processes that community groups may be making as they seek to make their communities more secure and raise awareness on some of the general issues associated with homeland security.

Briefing

Tell all participants that they will be role-playing members of a community group that has been brought together to examine a number of anti-terrorism initiatives. Their task is to share their information and point of view in order to make some decisions regarding which security initiatives they want to fund. They cannot choose all of the options; they must therefore discuss the potential merits of each, and their potential effects (although there are clues as to how effective each initiative is, the groups wont know until after theyve made their decisions the effect each initiative will have; use the Excel spreadsheet to automatically calculate the scores). Tell the groups their overall goal is to raise their Security Score to a minimum of 10, while maintaining a Freedom Score of at least 8.

Divide the participants into groups of 4-5 persons each (or use the exercise as a large group discussion if desired). Distribute the 5 different profile sheets to each group member (each group should have the 5 different profiles (pages 2-6) to aid in the discussion; distribute an equal amount of each profile type in large groups).

Note: Each participant should also receive the page that outlines the explanations for each initiative. Each individual participant will then receive a single sheet of briefing material with a profile (1-5) on the front and an explanation of each initiative on the back.

During the Simulation

Have each group start by reading over the information on their briefing sheets. Once they have read through their sheets, have the groups begin to discuss the various options and debate which initiatives would have the best effects. Encourage the groups to examine both the security and the freedom factors of each initiative. Emphasize thatalthough there are clues as to the effects of each choicethey will not know the effects of their decisions for certain until the end of the exercise. A major part of the challenge of the exercise is to use reasoning skills to deduce which combination of choices will best achieve the objective. Allow each group about 30 minutes to discuss the options and make their choices.

Allow the groups to use the participant version of the accompanying Excel file (Tudortown1.xls) to determine whether or not they are staying within their budget. The file is easy to use: participants simply enter an X in the column next to any option of their choice to have the cost of the initiative added to the total. If the group exceeds their budget, a red warning message (You have exceeded your budget) appears. The message disappears when enough choices are unchecked (simply enter a space character to delete an X) and the budget returns to an acceptable level. Do not allow participants to use the facilitator’s version of the file (Tudortown2.xls) that automatically calculates the scores. This version should be saved until after the groups have finalized their decisions and the score results need to be presented (the facilitator may want to use a computer/data projector set-up to display each groups scores).

Debriefing

When all groups have reached a consensus on how they will allocate their budget and which initiatives they will fund, plot each groups choices on the facilitators Excel spreadsheet and view each groups scores. Any group who achieves a Security Score of 10 or higher and a Freedom Score of 8 or higher has successfully completed the exercise. Once all of the groups scores have been calculated, debrief participants using the following questions:

1) Was each group successful in achieving a ‘10’ score in Security? Why or why not?”

Each groups score will vary. Groups that do not achieve a 10 score will likely have expended their budget on options that did not sufficiently raise their score, thus, fiscally effective choices are highly necessary.

2) What are some of the more cost-effective solutions in combating the terrorist threat?

Some of the more cost effective solutions include: anti-terror training, profiling, community groups, and surveillance equipment; these choices will increase the security of the community, but are not the most expensive options; it is a given reality that communities will only have a limited budget to spend on these types of initiatives, and that cost will always be a factor in these types of discussions.

3) What are some of the best combinations of choices that a group can make to increase its security while maintaining its freedom?

Although profiling has a high negative freedom factor, it is a highly effective method of preventing incidents. To prevent abuses of power, any profiling should be tempered with diversity training and a police oversight board. Also, anti-terror training in combination with the creation of community groups is a highly effective combination.

4) Profiling is a highly controversial solution proposed to combating terrorism (as well as general crime); should it be used as an option, or is it simply too discriminatory? Does profiling violate too many basic rights and freedoms, or is it justified?

You will receive many different responses to this question. There seems to be no question that profiling is highly discriminatory. The main question regarding this issue seems to be: what degree of freedom are we willing to sacrifice for increased security? Note that this option does not have to be utilized in order to achieve a Security Score of 10, however, it is an effective anti-terror option, and likely to be chosen by many groups. If profiling is instituted, diversity training and a police oversight board can reducebut not completely eliminateits negative effects. Ultimately, every community may have to address this issue, and deal with the increase in tensions between community groups if it is harshly instituted.

5) Did the exercise help to raise awareness in your group about how your community could combat terror threats? If so, how?

The answers to this question will vary from group to group, but hopefully the exercise raised awareness on the issues of security and freedom, and helped participants to think about some of potential threatsand potential solutionsthat exist in these dangerous times.

SUMMARY OF SIMULATION:

1) Divide participants into groups of 4-5 (or use one large group).

2 Distribute briefing sheets to each member; allow them several minutes to read over the material.

3) Begin the exercise by having groups discuss the information they possess and what combination of initiatives they would like to enact; allow them to use the Excel spreadsheet to calculate budget totals, but do not allow them to see the results of their choices in terms of Security/Freedom Scores until they have made their final decisions.

4) Once all of the groups have made their choices, use the facilitators Excel spreadsheet to calculate the groups costs, and their scores. Determine which group(s) were able to achieve a Security Score of 10 while maintaining a Freedom Score of at least 8. Share the explanations for scoring each initiative if desired.

5) Ask the debriefing questions listed above.

Explanation of Initiative Scores:

Disclaimer: this list is intended as a general reference for the exercise only. Every community will have a different set of circumstances that determine the actual values of each of these potential initiatives. It should be remembered that the exercise is intended as a starting point for discussion and decision-making by communities in their quest to increase their general safety, and NOT an authoritative ranking definition of potential security options.

Profiling: +3 Security, -3 Freedom. Profiling is one of the most controversial approaches to law enforcement in the last ten years. There is, however, a strong correlation between profiling and a drop in the crime rate. Profiling is also a strong threat to civil liberties and rights, and practices open discrimination. It can also raise the number of police brutality incidents (and the lawsuits that accompany such actions). Critics of Profiling have called it a legal form of racial discrimination.

Diversity Training: +0 Security, +1 Freedom. Diversity Trainingwhen delivered effectivelycan reduce some of the negative effects of Profiling, thus reducing the negative effect Profiling has on the freedom factor.

Police Oversight Group: +0 Security, +1 Freedom. Like Diversity Training, a Police Oversight Group can set policies and provide supervision to prevent the use of excessive force. This initiative will increase the freedom factor, as it will prevent many cases of arbitrary harassment or brutality.

Anti-Terror Training: +2 Security, +0 Freedom. Anti-terrorist training can be a very effective way to combat terrorist incidents. This is because it is specifically geared towards educating law enforcement personnel how to handle these situations.

Extra Police Level 2: +3 Security, -0 Freedom. This initiative will increase security simply by putting more personnel into action. Typically, this initiative will not impinge on freedom factorsunless there are incidents relating to placing too many poorly trained new officers into action. Level 2 will increase the security factor at a greater rate than Level 1 because the markedly increased visibility of the police themselves serves as a deterrent factor.

Extra Police Level 1: +1 Security, -0 Freedom. Same as Level 2, but not quite as effective. A small increase in police presence will provide greater security but may not be sufficiently visible to dissuade potential terrorists.

Police Equipment: +1 Security, -0 Freedom. Increased weapons and armor capability will raise the security factor somewhat, however, most terrorist threats can be managed with existing weapons and armor, so the increase is not all that significant. There is no effect on the freedom factors.

Building Barriers: +1 Security, -1 Freedom. This is the most expensive, but one of the least effective solutions. Although barriers will prevent vehicles from ramming into buildings, they do not prevent vehicles from exploding outside buildings (as in Oklahoma City) or pedestrian terrorists from entering the building. Ideally, all buildings should have such barriers, however, they do not prevent a number of other of types of attacks and are expensive.

Scanning Portals: +1 Security, -1 Freedom. This is an excellent solution for preventing the importation of metal weapons (guns, knives, etc.), but may not provide sufficient detection of explosive devices. It affects the freedom factor by reducing access and slowing down passage into buildings.

Canine Units: +1 Security, -0 Freedom. These specially trained dog units can sniff out dangerous substances such as explosives.

Computer Systems: +1 Security, -0 Freedom. This initiative will provide funding for the development of hardware/software database integration that can lead to the easier tracking of potential terrorists and suspects. This initiative will enable local police to quickly identify and detain wanted or suspect persons.

Surveillance Equipment: +2 Security, -1 Freedom. This initiative will purchase invasive surveillance equipment that enables police to see and hear activity beyond the bounds of public places. Although this type of spying can be very effective in obtaining intelligence against suspected terrorists, it is also a serious obtrusion into citizens privacy, and thus negatively affects the freedom factor.

Community Groups: +1 Security, +1 Freedom. This initiative is a win-win approach to increasing security while enhancing the freedom factor. Community Groups can do everything from provide neighborhood watches to encourage different sections of the community to come together.

Reward Incentives: +1 Security, -1 Freedom. This initiative will provide an incentive for those with knowledge of impending attacks to report it to police. However, the secret nature of most terrorist cells limits the effectiveness of this approach and may provide an incentive for a number of hoax reports or false alarms (thus impinging on the freedom factor).

Facilities Upgrades: +1 Security, -0 Freedom. This funding will help local police to respond more efficiently to terror threats, but is a costly initiative.

Medical Supplies: +2 Security, -0 Freedom. This initiative may help the general population in the case of a chemical or biological weapons attack, but it does nothing to prevent an attack in the first place. Although this initiative does not affect the freedom factor, it provides only a post-facto security increase. It may, however, be necessary given the potential for chemical/biological attacks.

Tragedy in Tudortown Profile 1

Last week, there was a horrendous tragedy in Tudortown. An anti-American religious fanatic brought a bomb into a crowded train station and exploded the device, killing himself and 12 others, and wounding 28 more. Tudortown has been shocked and horrified by this recent incident, and has convened a meeting of community representatives to form a special committee to study options and to implement initiatives to prevent this kind of tragedy from occurring again.

The committee (of which you are a member) has a number of choices that they can consider, but the allowable budget for these initiatives cannot total more than $10 million. Therefore, the committee must examine each initiative and choose which combination they can afford and which will best increase the security rate. You will also be examining the issue of balancing freedom vs. security: some initiatives that increase security will also reduce the freedom factor. Your overall objective is to raise the Security Score to at least 10 (it is currently at 0) while maintaining a Freedom Score of at least 8 (it is currently at 10).

Profile 1: You are a longtime citizen of Tudortown and a patriotic American. You are shocked and angered by the recent incident, and want to make Tudortown secure. You believe that the committee should spend all of its available funds to maximize security. You know that Profiling is one of the most effective ways to raise the citys security. You also know that the freedom factor will drop as the security factor rises. Last, you know that Tudortown must achieve a security score of 10 or higheror else there is a strong possibility that another incident will occur in the near future.