When the Legislature asked us to examine the economic impact of tuition tax credits a short six months ago, we expected to learn a lot about Utah's public and private education systems. Fortunately, we did. Unfortunately, we learned more about the hardball politics of public education.

We were familiar with the rough and tumble of the political arena and were forewarned by the successful efforts to exclude one member of our team who had publicly supported tuition tax credits. Any indication of previous support for the proposed policy, we quickly gathered, would disqualify the research. Those on our team who had publicly opposed tuition tax credits faced no similar litmus test.

Nevertheless, we believed a well-researched study would help legislators better understand the economic costs and benefits of tuition tax credits.

Two months ago we completed and released our report. We have presented our findings to the Legislature, the State Board of Education, the State Superintendents Association and a host of other groups. During those presentations, opponents of tuition tax credits have attacked us personally. One superintendent called us "snake-oil salesmen." One member of the state board said we had sullied the good name of Utah State University.

Frustrating though these personal attacks were, we shrugged them off. Politics is a bruising sport, and we were not so naive to believe we could escape unscathed.

During one of these meetings just before Christmas, Associate Superintendent Patrick Ogden announced he was convening three meetings where researchers could examine the technical merits of our study. "Finally," we thought, "some meaningful discourse about the study."

At 9:15 Monday night (Jan. 4, 2005), a Deseret Morning News reporter called us at home. "Mr. Ogden's researchers decimated your study — what's your response?" Our response was surprise — why were we learning about the results of this meeting from a reporter? Why was the press invited to this academic discussion of our study, but we weren't? Why hadn't Mr. Ogden invited us?

Reasonable minds can disagree about the choices we made in putting together our study, and we look forward to that reasoned discussion. However, it's hard for us to see what kind of meaningful discourse Mr. Ogden hoped for by not inviting us to participate.

Having included outspoken opponents of tuition tax credits on his panel, and being an outspoken opponent of tuition tax credits himself, we can only conclude that Mr. Ogden assembled this group to attack a study that, at least in his mind, bolsters the case for tuition tax credits.

For the record, we were not asked to, nor did our study opine on the merits of tuition tax credits. Our study examines the economic effects of enacting tuition tax credit legislation. In other words, how much will tuition tax credits cost or save the residents of Utah. Whether Utah legislators should adopt tuition tax credits requires a discussion of many other issues that underscore the core educational values of society and society's expectations from a publicly funded and operated education system.

We look forward to working with the Legislature and our critics who sincerely want to understand this very complex issue. Utah deserves a thorough, honest and open debate regarding tuition tax credits because only through a thorough, honest and open debate can our elected officials be the stewards Utahns expect.

---

Chris Fawson is vice provost for Academic and International Affairs and professor of economics at Utah State University. Robert Herzberg is an associate professor of political science at USU.