USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Guidelines for writing your Op-Ed (or opinion piece). These are standards that will be used to evaluate it.
EXAMPLES OF TWO WINNING OP-EDS WRITTEN BY STUDENTS
Taking a Position:
Does the opinion piece take a position that is clearly expressed? The position may be a recommendation for action or it may be to alert readers to a problem. The author should make a single point well. You, as the reader, should be able to explain the author’s message in a sentence or two. If a student fails to address the specified topic– that is, deals with another topic entirely — you should evaluate his or her Op-Ed with a 1-3 score for this criterion.
6-7: The opinion piece has an original, well-argued position. The piece draws the reader into looking at the topic in a new way or with new insight. The reader can readily summarize what the author is saying and why.
4-5: The opinion piece takes a thoughtful position. But the supporting data appear a bit muddled. Readers are left with questions: Why did the author take this position? Why take this position rather than an alternative one?
2-3: The piece leaves readers confused as to what point the author is trying to make. The reader cannot readily summarize the author’s key point or the data supporting the position seem not to really support it.
1: The paper lacks an identifiable point. Readers are left confused as to what point the author is making and why.
Persuasive: Does the piece persuade the reader? A good piece argues effectively for a particular position. Even though the reader may not ultimately agree with the author, the reader comes away from the piece willing to seriously consider the author’s perspective.
If a student fails to address the specified topic– that is, deals with another topic entirely — you should evaluate his or her Op-Ed with a 1-3 score for this criterion.
6-7: A reader comes away from reading the piece feeling the author has effectively argued for a certain position. The author uses concrete examples that resonate with readers.
4-5: The opinion piece highlights an important topic. But it does not really convince readers as to the value of the author’s position.
2-3: The opinion piece seems mostly a personal venting. The author is not reaching out to readers or trying to connect with them in a meaningful way.
1: The piece is unconvincing. An unbiased reader, reading this piece, would not find the piece very persuasive.
Hook and Structure: Does the opinion piece engage the reader right at the beginning? Is there evidence of thoughtful organization? Does the author summarize the main point at the end?
6-7: The main point is effectively stated in the first few sentences. These first few sentences capture the reader’s attention and draw the reader into reading further. The author effectively summarizes the piece’s argument in a strong final paragraph.
4-5: Readers are not immediately drawn into the argument. But they are not put off by it either. They find the piece reasonable but a little slow moving. It does not hold the reader’s attention. The final paragraph does not offer a powerful restatement of the author’s position.
2-3: The piece makes a basic point. But it does not catch your attention. It does not draw you in at the beginning nor does it summarize its message at the end.
1: The author never draws the reader into the opinion piece. It is not clear what the author is saying nor why it is important.
Writing and Clarity: Is the piece readily understandable by non-academic readers? General readers should find the piece easy and interesting to read. There should be few grammatical and spelling errors.
6-7: The writing is clear. The author’s own voice and perspective come through in a convincing way. You can identify with the author and the position she or he takes. There are no grammatical mistakes that distract from the author’s argument.
4-5: The writing is reasonable. The sentences and paragraphs are a bit too long or the passive voice is emphasized. There is a bit too much jargon.
2-3: The author tends to go on too long. It is not really clear what point she or he is making. The author has long sentences and paragraphs.
1: A reader is left confused as to what point the author is trying to make.
Tone: Is the opinion piece polite and respectful? The focus is on persuading the reader rather than voicing indignation or condemnation.
6-7: The opinion piece is polite and respectful in tone. Rather than dismissing the other side, it acknowledges its value while disagreeing with it. It comes across as written by a thoughtful professional versed in the subject being discussed.
4-5: There is generally a polite tone. But the author does not acknowledge that reasonable people might disagree regarding the point being made. The author asserts there is one reasonable position and she or he is presenting it.
2-3: The piece comes across as quite opinionated. It appears the author is “venting” about something that bothers her or him.
1: The piece is similar to a political “attack” ad. The author is pouring at rage with little concern for who is reading the piece.
EXAMPLES OF TWO WINNING OP-EDS WRITTEN BY STUDENTS
Researching on the virus, syphilis, i find it disturbing what people have done to actually spread this disease.
Paying prostitutes to have sex with prisoners and letting these prisoners out with this disease is horrible. I feel
the research needs to go more into stopping the disease from spreading rather than trying to make a cure.
There’s diseases out there that no man can cure, my opinion is STD’s could be one of those diseases. Putting
humans at risk as a “test experiment” is beyond crossing human rights. I am disgusted that something like this
could occur and some should be ashamed of this. To apologize nearly 64 years later still leaves no remorse in
my mind. Guatemala families should definitely compensate for such a crime. Research should look more into
stopping this horrible disease at a very minor expense.
Letter B, Page 1
10/12/12
OP-ED 2012
What would you do if someone were to infect you with a deadly disease without your knowledge or permission
for them doing so? This was the case in the example of the Guatemala Syphilis Experiment, which showed to us
the lack of common rules among research by the IRB and the REB. It is clear that there needs to be a set rule of
guidelines for researchers in order to protect the participant’s rights to life and privacy. In order to regulate
the common rules I agree 100% that researchers should have their studies reviewed before and after their
studies are done. If researchers were to have complete freedom to study the way they wanted to without review
there is guarantee that people rights to privacy would be evoked. A simple way to know whether or not the
research being implemented is positive for society is to simply ask the question if anyone’s rights are being
imposed on when conducting the experiment, if so it should not be done.
In Case four we hear from a researcher that suggests, “But as long as we have these kinds of boards that review
every proposal, it’s going to be challenging to make significant changes―. It’s hard to believe that because
of having ones research reviewed for imposing on human rights would make it impossible to make progress. It
seems to me that we have made great discovery’s in the past and continue to progress without having to
invade others privacy. If researches had the ability to conduct any survey as they please it would probably end
up setting the research program back, because why would people truest an experiment that hasn’t been review?
It’s easy to see how from a researchers point of view their experiment will be for the greater good no matter
what the sacrifice is being made, however, that’s why there is a need for these type of boards who think
about the outcome for both parties, not willing to sacrifice another’s happiness for the sake of research. For
example, in the case of the Yanomami “Neel decided to do his research without first gaining Yanomami
permission. And he decided, on his own, what the reciprocal benefits of his research would be―. Turns out that
the Yanomami felt taken advantage of and don’t even acknowledge Neel in ever helping them at all. Neel
felt like he had the complete freedom to conduct his research however he wanted, having boards to review these
studies before they are done prevents people from feeling taken advantage of.
In conclusion, the IRB and REB have the right to make common rules and should enforce them rightfully. If
researches had the complete freedom to conduct any study they wanted it would actually set back the research
program, creating a bad image. The boards should continue the requirement of review over all studies and
should not let any studies role out without prior review before and after the study has been done. Sticking to the
“Belmont Report― is best, to ensure that people have their privacy and justice when needed, which
hopefully there isn’t going to be need of justice when the rules are enforced.
Letter C, Page 1
As I began reading the four case studies, I had realized just how new I must be to anthropology and
anthropological research. I had always believed anthropology was mostly about research on the history of
homo-sapiens and our previous ancestors. The depth in research with regards to the regulations and ethics for
modern humans was unfounded by me.
As I go into thinking about how to consider the rules of anthropological research with virgin eyes and thoughts, I
have to imagine a world without any regulations. Undoubtedly, researchers would push the limits of their
research and more likely than less would perform experiments which would be looked upon as unethical against
the human race. This world nevertheless could be filled with outstanding research and benefits to the human
race, but at the cost of innocent people’s privacy, beliefs, and even possibly their lives. One may argue that
anthropologists even without these rules and regulations would act morally correct and not push the limits of
their research. However, it just doesn’t seem possible as even now with present review boards for anthropology
research that certain studies and experiments are to be unjustly performed innocently or knowingly as seen in
case studies 1-3.
Of course an inverse thought, which would be a world filled with the strictest of rules and regulations would just
be bound to simple and non-constructive research. As seen in the fourth case study, even with current rules that
try not to limit potential research, studies can become elongated and even limited to who can be interviewed or
studied. This lawful world just seems too locked up for a type of research that involves humans who have free
thought and independent actions which could never be assessed by only observational study.
With these two ideas in mind, I find the issue and difficulty of finding the right balance for freedom of research
and respect for human rights. Without doubt this is why review boards have been placed over anthropology
researchers. It’s hard if not impossible to create a set of common rules that will be considered perfect for
research and ensure protection of all. However, it is possible that one set of rules can always be fairer than
another.
From my understanding with most forms or research, many studies done seem to be considered acceptable as
long as consent of the studied party is agreed upon. This is a rule I believe should be enforced and is being
forced now in review boards. With this rule, researchers are allowed to perform a vast amount of studies as long
as they can provide sufficient reason for their research and gain the approved and understood consent of those
being studied. As long as researchers can explain and get their point across for research, I believe most people
and societies would agree to help and participate in benefiting research for the human race. To insure this rule is
followed and that studied parties are informed of all parts of research, strong laws and fines should be placed to
insure that acts against the human race are always in consideration. This allows the largest possible amount of
freedom researches could possibly have without putting human respect at risk.
One rule however, which cannot be broken even with the fullest of consent of a person or persons, is bringing
harm to any human. Harming or even doing experiments on another human seems unethical in all senses and
breaks any human dignity a researcher may have. Although there could be beneficial results to such research,
there just seems something innately immoral about doing harm to another for the sake of research.
Also all researchers should propose there potential studies to their designated review board. The review boards
for these researchers should also understand and as well help promote such studies. If an administration would
like to be supported and respected, all review boards should respond and cooperate with researchers to get their
studies completed. Although this could never be lawfully enforced, if true anthropology was to be promoted it
would have to be by the fullest support of review boards. By fullest support I am expecting review boards to
Letter D, Page 1
provide timely responses for approval of research, ways in which researchers can get denied proposals
approved, and an unbiased review of the proposed research being evaluated.
Although there are many other rules and concepts that can be brought up about the subject, I feel fundamentally
these ideas are necessary for the freedom and respect of research is done in a positive and beneficial way.
Letter D, Page 2
