This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2011, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

I realized on Friday — after two days in which the Utah Legislature speedily gutted many of our rights to public information — that I will have to revise my curriculum.

I teach business communications at a local university. In recent years, I have integrated ethics education into the concepts of our class, much of it in response to scandals at organizations such as Enron, Worldcom, various sub-prime mortgage lenders, and the like. In our case histories, we learn that ethical conduct often comes down to a couple of simple principles: (1) transparency in decision-making and (2) good faith in the decision-making process.

I urge my students to look for organizations that exemplify openness and accountability in their decision-making from which they can draw their inspiration. I used to think that included the Utah Legislature.

In my class, students also chronicle the patterns of abuse that characterize unethical conduct. We discuss how organizations hoping to manipulate their audiences into unfavorable options usually employ similar techniques, including:

1. Limiting exposure and discussion among multiple parties on the issue.

2. Rushing the audience to a decision as soon as possible.

3. Employing rhetorical fallacies that impede clear thinking.

Our discussion previously focused on organizations that engage in pyramid schemes, fraudulent financial schemes, and time-share sales. Add to that list now: organizations in Utah that make state laws.

Now I'm left to wonder how my students are supposed to interpret the actions of our Legislature over two days: House Bill 477 was unveiled less than 48 hours before it was voted on, giving no time for public consideration or discussion; it was rushed to a vote quickly in both houses, with very little time in committees; and, without missing a beat in their routine, the Legislature tapped out the most tired fallacies calculated to inhibit rational discussion.

The first of these fallacies was the slippery slope, or language condemning something (such as the public's right to information) simply because it might lead to a dramatic, undesirable or unlikely end, usually without articulating the connections between the idea and the end.

For example, consider the statement from one representative: "We need to restrict public access to legislative information because I might have a constituent mail me a letter with private health information, and it could end up on the front page of the news." Why is this fallacious? Because it disregards provisions already in the law that prevent such a scenario, and it fails to establish why such provisions might not be adequate.

Next, we heard the false dilemma. This is a presentation of two, binary options as being the only available options, when, in reality, more exist. For example, consider the argument that making selected electronic records public puts the private lives of legislators on public display. However, this is unlikely in the real world because such records can be redacted, or left out, as part of the process that is already in place. It is not a situation where everything a legislator communicates electronically either has to be exposed for public consumption or sealed off entirely.

The process in place already tempers these false extremes. Sealing off all electronic records is an overreaching reaction to a problem best solved by careful thinking, not rash judgment.

If there is a silver lining for me, it is that the Utah Legislature's actions reflect the most economical pedagogy for demonstrating bad faith and secrecy in one organization: It was in the very act of subverting its decision-making transparency that the Legislature acted in such egregiously bad faith.

Somehow I think this will be of little consolation to young adults about to embark on their professional careers and yearning for examples of integrity.

John Wight is an instructor of business communications at Brigham Young University. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the university.