Editorial

There have been many types of fallout, if that’s even the right word, from the Harvey Weinstein saga and the wave of accusations against men in power (or formerly in power, as is usually the case) since then.

Some of them are quite positive — women becoming more willing to come forward when they believe they have been harassed, no matter who might be doing the harassing, for example.

But some of the emerging developments have been less … let’s use the word ‘progressive.’ And one of them is quite disturbing.

This would be the extreme forms of reaction from men now intent, upon looking in the mirror, on doing the proverbial right thing. Or, to be more accurate, we believe, not doing the wrong thing.

And in many respects, who can blame them? Almost daily now, the media reports of someone else, and sometimes more than one individual, being accused of inappropriate behavior. The list is long and packed with notable names: Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Al Franken, Charlie Rose, Roy Moore, Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K. … on it goes.

Who wants to join that list and have their career end in a New York minute or Hollywood moment? No one, obviously.

So now, men are doing that looking-in-the-mirror thing. But they’re doing more than that. They’re talking amongst themselves (not to women, which is what they should be doing, if they really need to talk to anyone at all) about what is appropriate and what isn’t.

They’re also discussing and floating ways to stay out of trouble. One business owner has even suggested canceling the office’s holiday party until it has been figured out how men and women should interact.

Seriously? Men need to figure out how they should interact with women?

In some ways, women are now being punished for the sins of all those harassers out there. They’re being looked upon not as valued team members, but as potential lawsuits waiting to happen — complaints begging to be filed if someone says the wrong thing or does the wrong thing.

This will only have terrible repercussions for women in business. They will be left out of discussions; treated differently in an effort to treat them better, or fairly; left home on business trips; and deprived of access to professional relationships that might help further their careers.

But it doesn’t need to be that way. Men don’t require tutorials on how to treat women; they know. It’s just become fashionable now, it seems, to say that no one really knows how to behave around women, because that’s an easy answer.

There is no need to cancel the office Christmas party or have men become afraid to be seen in the company of women other than their wives — the so-called ‘Pence Rule.’ All that’s needed is a little common sense and a lot of common decency.

Above all, we don’t need an environment in which women should have to pay a price for all the bad behavior that has gone on, and continues to go on, in workplaces across the country and in every sector.

Editorial

In the days and weeks after the Harvey Weinstein story broke and new wrinkles were continually added, there was growing commentary that maybe some kind of milestone had been reached, that maybe the tide was turning when it came to sexual harassment in the workplace.

This commentary was generally greeted with large amounts of skepticism, in the same way that there was skepticism with thoughts, and hopes, that the latest mass shooting would be the one to finally stimulate action (in whatever form it could possibly take) to make sure this was the last such tragedy.

And that skepticism is warranted, because, like gun violence, sexual harassment has longed seemed like a problem we just couldn’t solve, something that people, and especially women, would just to have to live with. There is a ‘that’s just how it is’ sentiment about it.

But increasingly, it seems that, while there is still ample room for skepticism on this topic, there is also space for some optimism, some hope that maybe a sea change is in the offing. Some promise that people may soon be saying ‘that’s how it was’ instead of ‘that’s how it is’ or ‘that’s how it will always be.’

Why? Well, there are several reasons. Let’s start with the manner in which the Weinstein case has shed light on the subject and shown that, when people come forward — even if it’s years or decades after the fact — offenders can be brought to justice (in whatever form it takes), and a situation might change.

As just one example, the Massachusetts Legislature has come under scrutiny in recent weeks in the form of allegations that people in positions of power (most all of them men) wielded that power in ways that created a truly hostile workplace, where women became convinced that saying ‘no,’ or not putting up with harassment, could derail everything from specific pieces of legislation to their careers.

In a statement given to the Boston Globe, House Speaker Robert DeLeo said he was “infuriated and deeply disturbed” to hear that women had described being harassed in the State House. It doesn’t say he was surprised, because he was probably wasn’t. But something else he said is quite telling.

“While I understand and support their desire to remain anonymous, the fact that victims fear the consequences to their careers of reporting the harassment is as upsetting as the harassment itself.” Upsetting, but hardly surprising.

But it’s here where the sea change might lie. There is sentiment that, increasingly, women (and, in some cases, men) are becoming less fearful about reporting harassment, and this willingness to come forward is changing the landscape and bringing the careers of formerly powerful men to an abrupt end.

Harvey Weinstein. Bill O’Reilly. Mark Halperin. Kevin Spacey. The list is growing longer, and that’s a very positive thing. As is the outrage concerning those who protected what have come to be known in some circles as “superstar harassers” and put people in harm’s way because of their actions. In some cases, their careers are being destroyed as well; Bob Weinstein might just be every bit as radioactive as his brother.

Make no mistake, society in general and the business world in particular still have a long way to go when it comes to being able to refer to the Weinstein case and others in anything approaching the past tense — as in ‘that’s how it used to be.’

But there is now much more than hope that some kind of corner has been turned. There is emerging evidence that this is, indeed, the case. And hopefully, we’ll see much more progress in the years to come.

Editorial

We can’t say with any degree of certainty whether Theodor Geisel would appreciate all the controversy that’s been swirling about his work recently. But we think he probably would.

Throughout his career, he never shied away from politics or controversy, and, more than anyone else, he understood that his works were always a matter of interpretation and that people often saw in them what they wanted to see.

Don’t forget, it was Geisel, a.k.a. Dr. Seuss, who, in 1974, just a few days before President Richard Nixon resigned in the wake of the Watergate scandal, sent columnist Art Buchwald a copy of his book Marvin K. Mooney Will You Please Go Now! — with ‘Marvin K. Mooney’ crossed out and replaced with ‘Richard M. Nixon.’ Buchwald asked if Geisel if he could reprint it, and despite warnings from his publisher that this was probably not a good idea, Geisel gave his blessing to do so.

And that’s just one example of how the author eschewed the ‘play it safe’ and ‘let’s be careful not to offend anyone’ theory of the universe, one that has pretty much taken over life as we know it in 2017, where political correctness — or the endless pursuit of it — is the order of the day.

Which brings us to the recent controversy about Seuss and his work. First, a librarian in Cambridge refused to accept Dr. Seuss books given to her by the current First Lady, claiming that the author was a “tired and worn ambassador for children’s literature” and that his illustrations are “steeped in racist propaganda, caricatures, and harmful stereotypes.”

Next, three children’s authors said they would boycott a festival at the recently opened Seuss museum in the Quadrangle because of an image of a Chinese man on a mural at the museum, complete with chopsticks, one they said was a “jarring racial stereotype.”

In response, the museum’s leaders have said they will replace the mural with “a new image that reflects the wonderful characters and messages from Dr. Seuss’ later works.”

That decision didn’t sit well at all with Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno, who called on the museum to consider leaving the offending mural in place. Meanwhile, restaurateur and developer Andy Yee, the son of Chinese immigrants, took offense at the proposed removal and, along with business partner Peter Picknelly, offered to buy the mural to display elsewhere.

“Where do we draw the line?” the mayor asked in his statement. “This is political correctness at its worst, and this is what is wrong with this country?”

As we said at the top, Theodor Geisel probably would have liked all this — and we’re just going to guess that he would be right there with the mayor on this one, saying, in essence, ‘my work is my work; interpret it how you will, and discuss it as you will.’

But we’re just speculating.

Actually, what Ted Geisel would do is not the issue here. It’s what the museum should do in this matter, and this is not an easy question to answer.

The new facility in the Quadrangle is called the Amazing World of Dr. Seuss Museum. His world was different from this one, and his world (and his works) certainly included a number of stereotypical images, many of which would be considered harmful to those who see them.

Does the museum present this world unvarnished, or does it take pains — as it looks like it will — to only show the parts of this world that probably (that’s probably) won’t offend anyone?

While we completely understand why the museum would take out the mural in question — this image may indeed be offensive to some Asians (if not Yee), and there are plenty of ‘safer’ images, for lack of a better term — this is a very slippery slope to start down, or continue down, because we started down it a long time ago.

If museums start removing art (and that’s what this is) that offends someone, anyone, then soon we’ll be looking at blank walls. It’s the same with books, statues, monuments, and buildings named after people.

Let the discussion continue. Theodor Geisel would have liked it, and he probably would have joined right in.

Editorial

Count us among those who are disappointed that a proposal to subsidize a study of a proposed high-speed rail system that would link Springfield and Boston was quietly dropped during the state budget process.

Not because we’re ardent supporters of such a system — not yet, anyway — but because we really think the matter should be studied. There is widespread belief that an east-west high-speed rail system would make the state significantly smaller and, somehow, level the playing field when it comes to the huge discrepancy in overall vibrancy between east (specifically inside the Route 128 corridor) and west (meaning pretty much everything west of Worcester).

We’re not so sure, at least when it comes to that part about leveling the playing field (high-speed rail would certainly make the state smaller), so, therefore the matter should be studied — and studied properly.

We say properly because studies mean different things to different people, especially in government circles. Many times, bodies like the state House and Senate move to study something when they don’t know what to do with a given proposal or project or don’t want to do anything with it.

So they study it. And when the study comes back, it sits on the shelf for awhile. Sometimes, it sits there for so long, they need to study it again before they can do anything, or not do anything, as the case may be.

Hence the phrase ‘studied to death,’ which must have been coined by someone in — or frustrated by — municipal, state, or federal government.

Given all that, a study of high-speed rail sounds like something the Legislature should approve. Only it didn’t, which left state Sen. Eric Lesser, a vocal supporter of such a system, to call the vote to shelve the proposal “sketchy.”

We’ll just say it was curious — and frustrating. Maybe legislators thought the cost of the study is too high. Maybe they thought the cost of building a high-speed rail system is way too high, so they decided not to even bother studying it. Maybe Peter Picknelly got in their ear. Maybe they don’t want to level the field between east and west.

No one seems to know.

We do know that high-speed rail looks good on paper. But as we said, we’re not sure it will bring to this region all that Lesser and other supporters believe it will.

High-speed rail will bring Boston a lot closer to Springfield and vice versa, but what, exactly, will that mean for this region? Does it mean the high-tech companies that now gravitate to the 128 corridor because that’s where the people they want to hire all live will suddenly find Western Mass. more attractive, because people could live out here and work in Boston, this giving this region a stronger workforce? Maybe.

Does it mean that people who need to live in or near Boston to work there might now move out here because they would no longer have to live in or near Boston to work there? Probably. And what would that do for this region?

Would more people who are educated in this region now stay here because they could work in and around Boston and live out here? Probably. But what would that do for this region?

Overall, and to the casual observer, high-speed rail would present more opportunities for people to live in the western part of the state and work in the eastern part of the state. Will this level the playing field? Or will it just make Greater Springfield a suburb of Boston, one where the price of living will certainly skyrocket because it is now that much closer to Boston?

Good questions. No easy answers.

This thing needs to be studied by a group like the UMass Donahue Institute. Only it won’t, until at least year.

Which, as we said, is very frustrating.

No one would argue against the concept of clean water. But many people, even those living in the vicinity of the Connecticut River watershed (a group that includes most Pioneer Valley residents), may not understand all the reasons why.

When Dr. Joseph Davidson, founder of the Connecticut River Watershed Council, toured the river in 1959 to highlight its issues, those problems were easily understood; specifically, some areas were so infested with sewage and filth that people — smart people, anyway — couldn’t swim in the water, or even paddle.

Davidson’s organization — which recently rebranded as the Connecticut River Conservancy — has spearheaded efforts to clean the river for more than six decades, both through its own hard work and by advocating for stricter local, state, and federal environmental laws. As a result, the river and its tributaries are now havens for outdoor creation, from kayakers to fishermen (and women); from raft riders to dragon-boat enthusiasts.

But the CRC has done much more than that. By funding the removal of long-defunct dams, it is bringing back wildlife, including fish that swim upstream from the ocean to spawn. By creating an interactive website where people can test the bacteria levels at various points and post them — and soliciting help on trash cleanups and other projects — it is engaging the public on ecological issues and helping them understand that river stewardship is a public trust. And by putting science at the forefront, it is providing an antidote to common misperceptions about climate change.

Tying all these threads together is the impact the watershed — which actually covers some 11,000 square miles in four states — has on quality of life in the region and, by extension, the economy. “We know that when you have cleaner, healthier, and more abundant natural resources, your economy flourishes, and quality of life flourishes,” said Andrew Fisk, CRC director. “We want to see both economic and ecological abundance.”

It’s the economic impact many people don’t often think about, from the small businesses that benefit from river recreation — such as marinas, raft-tour operators, boat dealers, and stores that specialize in fishing, camping, and outdoor gear — to people and businesses that might choose to move to Western Mass. for quality-of-life reasons, clean and vibrant waterways being one of them.

In short, the CRC’s work — which is rapidly expanding along with a budget that has nearly quadrupled in the past five years — is a prime example of how economic and ecological interests don’t need to be at odds, but actually share much common ground. It’s why the conservancy is excited about what will happen over the next 65 years — and why we should be, too.

Editorial

It wasn’t so long ago — just a few years, actually — when people were wondering out loud whether this region could effectively support minor-league professional sports teams, and often answering the question with a ‘no,’ or, at best, a cautious ‘maybe.’

This was a time not long after Springfield had lost its team in the NBA’s Developmental League, the Armor (it never really caught on at all, as you might recall), and was soon to lose its franchise in the American Hockey League, a far bigger blow, because AHL hockey had been part of the fabric of Springfield since FDR was in the White House.

How things have changed in the matter of a few years.

Springfield’s new entry in the AHL, the Thunderbirds, had a hugely successful first season, according to a number of yardsticks, including attendance, season-ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, visibility (the team’s logo is everywhere in Springfield), and three awards from the league at its annual marketing meeting last month.

Meanwhile, the Valley Blue Sox, an affiliate of the New England Collegiate Baseball League, have made Holyoke and MacKenzie Stadium a true summertime destination for families across the region (see story, page 29).

The team, which struggled earlier this decade, has blossomed into the NECBL’s top draw, ranking 11th nationally among 169 summer collegiate teams in 2016; it’s even doing better, attendance-wise, than 20 A-level pro teams and three AA squads.

All this is good for the region, because it needs things for families to do, and it needs more of the things (and there are many of them) that will attract tourists, and, more importantly, young professionals, to this area.

But the answer to the question ‘how are these teams doing this?’ is the most important, and inspirational, part of the equation, and there are actually lessons here for all business owners.

The teams are flourishing for three main reasons. First is a huge emphasis on marketing and brand building, something many businesses put too far down on the list of priorities. Second, they’re listening to the customers and responding to what they’re hearing. And third, they’re firmly focused on that most important ingredient in business success: value.

And because they’re doing all that, the numbers flashed on the scoreboards at the MassMutual Center and MacKenzie Field are only a small factor in the success quotient.

Indeed, Hunter Golden, general manager of the Blue Sox, hit the nail on the head when he said, “what keeps the engine going is the fan experience.” The Blue Sox and Thunderbirds have fully embraced that concept with promotions and attractions ranging from live music to a Star Wars Night, from guest appearances from iconic professional wrestlers to ketchup-and-mustard races; from low-priced tickets to deals on concessions.

These aren’t gimmicks — OK, in some cases, they’re gimmicks — but they are proven methods of creating a market for a product by providing value and what the customer is ultimately looking for.

As we said earlier, these are valuable lessons for all those doing business today. So, not only have people stopped asking if this region can support minor-league teams, they’re looking at those teams as models when it comes to how to succeed in business.

Editorial

It might be as simple as a walking club.

One of the companies BusinessWest spoke with this month about workplace wellness initiatives (see story HERE) related the fact that several employees get together every day to walk around the block, and that its new facility set to open this fall will be even more amenable to walking, with more natural surroundings and trails nearby.

The idea is, quite simply, to get people moving, away from the typical office worker’s pose, hunched over a desk, staring at a screen, often not even leaving the cubicle for lunch. When people move around and engage in some light exercise during the day, they tend to be fitter, feel better, and become more productive and even happier employees. Allowing them time to take a walk is an investment that pays off for the company in the long term.

And it’s only one way businesses are promoting what’s been called a ‘healthy culture’ at work. There are lunch-and-learn seminars on health and wellness topics. Free or discounted gym memberships, or even exercise facilities in the workplace. Free, healthy snacks in the community kitchen. No-smoking policies. Adjustable desks that allow workers to perform their computer tasks standing up.

Some of these initiatives cost money. But many cost almost nothing, and even the ones with a price tag promise to lower costs exponentially down the road.

The reason touches on a concept called presenteeism, the state of showing up for work, but not performing at full capacity — a state that can be triggered by many things: boredom, apathy, trouble at home, but also not feeling well. According to a Global Corporate Challenge survey on presenteeism, while employees tend to be absent from work for sickness four days a year, they confessed to being unproductive on the job an average of 57 days annually — which, from a bottom-line perspective, costs businesses 10 times what absenteeism costs.

That, in black and white — and red ink — is the financial argument for creating a culture of wellness at work and committing to it for the long term. After all, healthy, happy employees who feel like their employer’s care about their well-being are a powerful force in the workforce, and their satisfaction can be infectious — in the best sense of that term.

Valley Gives Day Highlights Area Needs

It’s an inspiring — and important — 24 hours.

It’s called Valley Gives, and organizers — including the event’s founder and host, the Community Foundation of Western Mass. — hope to top last year’s haul, when more than $1.6 million was donated to 450 nonprofit organizations in one day. Since Valley Gives was launched in 2012, nearly 20,000 donors, both local and far away, have opened their hearts and wallets to the tune of $7.2 million.

This year, the big day is Tuesday, May 2, and for 24 hours — from midnight until 11:59 p.m. — individuals are invited to log into valley-gives.org and, well, give. It couldn’t be easier: participants are asked to choose an organization or cause (or multiple ones) from Hampden, Hampshire, or Franklin county and how much they want to donate.

The goal of Valley Gives is threefold: to raise money for organizations throughout the Pioneer Valley that serve the needs and address the aspirations of its communities, to expand and enhance philanthropy and the spirit of giving throughout the region, and to provide support and tools to organizations in the region to effectively increase their capacity to raise funds and share their stories.

It’s a deceptively simple idea, in that it highlights for one day just how great the needs of nonprofits are, how many such organizations there are, and how expansive their work is. The existence of Valley Gives doesn’t mean residents of Western Mass. aren’t generous year-round; they certainly are. But by turning giving into an event — a festival of funding, if you will — it brings extra awareness, and financial support, to needs people may not have considered before. And the online nature of the event is easier than even writing and mailing a check.

The organizations benefiting from Valley Gives have a varied and broad range of missions, but all are focused on their community’s hopes and needs. And all are counting on the generosity of their neighbors.

Let the giving begin.

Editorial

More than 600 people gathered at the MassMutual Center in Springfield earlier this month for a first-of-a-kind event in many ways.

This was the Caritas Ball, staged by the Sisters of Providence Health System (SPHS), an event to raise money to treat — and raise awareness of — addiction, and especially the opioid-addiction crisis that is affecting our communities in many ways.

As noted, this was the first Caritas Ball, and it was the first time we know of that people came together in a very large space to openly acknowledge and address a problem that is reaching epic proportions.

It was encouraging to see, and a welcome development for this region, because to truly fight addiction, our communities have to own the problem. And until very recently, they really haven’t.

Indeed, addiction, through the ages, and until very recently, has been something we didn’t talk about much — let alone come together at a gala to fight — and certainly didn’t own. It was generally someone else’s problem, something you read about in the paper or hear about from your neighbor and shake your head in response.

Not anymore.

The opioid crisis has certainly hit home. Almost everyone’s home. In fact, it would be very hard to find someone who has not been touched directly — or doesn’t know someone who has been touched directly — by this crisis. By that, we mean touched in the most profound and tragic way possible — someone losing their life to an addiction problem.

The current estimates are that roughly four people are dying each day in Massachusetts alone to this epidemic. Four people a day! Every day. And with each death, a family, or two, or three, is shattered.

The very worst part about the opioid crisis is that those who are fighting it on the front lines — people like Dr. Robert Roose, chief medical officer and vice president of Addiction and Recovery Services for the SPHS, who was honored at the gala with the first Caritas Award — can’t even tell us if it has plateaued yet. As much as we would like to believe it has, they just don’t know, and if they had to guess, they would likely say ‘probably not.’

This sad fact was the primary motivation for the Caritas Ball (‘caritas’ means love). All those involved know that this fight is still very much in the beginning stages, and we have a long, long way to go before maybe, just maybe, we don’t have to stage this kind of event anymore.

Defeating an epidemic of this magnitude takes many things, starting with money, which was one of the primary motivations for the event — money for treatment, money for prevention programs, money to build or expand facilities where those who are addicted, and their families, can get help.

But beyond money, the key to addressing this issue is, again, taking ownership of it, and a big part of that equation is removing the stigma that has long been attached to this issue.

Gov. Charlie Baker said it best in a video congratulations note to Roose played at the gala: “Addiction is a disease; it’s not a character flaw.”

Saying those words is one thing; believing them, and treating those addicted accordingly — as if they had a disease — are two different things. To battle the problem correctly, our communities need to provide understanding, compassion, and, yes, caritas.

The evening of the Caritas Ball was a big night in Springfield. The Thunderbirds were playing, and the ‘Pink in the Rink’ event, a fund-raiser for Dress for Success, preceded the action. There was a third event at the MassMutual Center — another of the many dance competitions staged there — and a performance at Symphony Hall. Downtown was alive, parking was at a premium, and everyone was marveling at how vibrant Springfield was.

They were also marveling at how 600 people, including a host of business, civic, academic, and healthcare leaders, had come together to help stare down the most imposing health crisis (for that’s what it is) that our society has probably ever seen.

Plans are already underway for the 2018 gala, and there will probably be several to follow; this battle will not be won quickly or easily.

It starts with owning the problem, and the gala represented a huge step forward. v

Editorial

Critiquing marketing material is akin to analyzing a presidential debate or scoring a Saturday Night Live skit. It’s certainly easy to be critical and wonder out loud, ‘couldn’t they do any better than that?’

Just think back to the Super Bowl and how many times we all said words to that effect after almost every one of the commercials.

We bring this up because the Economic Development Council of Western Mass., via an Oklahoma-based marketing firm that specializes in branding regions, has come up with a new name, or brand, for this region: West Mass.

Let’s rephrase that: West Mass???

This is where we make like we’ve seen another of those Super Bowl ads or a hopelessly weak installment of Weekend Update, and say ‘really?’

It took a year, intensive questionnaires, and tens of thousands of dollars to come up with … this?

West Mass? This is the new brand for this region, the one that’s supposed to replace ‘Pioneer Valley,’ which, by the way, won’t be replaced simply because too many businesses and agencies are invested in it.

West Mass?

This is disappointing on a number of levels, but let’s start with the fact that the EDC decided that none of the excellent marketing firms in this region that submitted proposals for this rebrand were worthy of the task, so it instead hired that Oklahoma-based firm, Cubic Creative, to come up with something that an intern from one of the local colleges could have come up with while on lunch break.

OK, we’re being really cynical, but it’s hard not to be. A lot of time and resources were expended on this, and from our view, the region is no better off, marketing-slogan/brand-wise, than it was before. In fact, it’s probably worse off.

To be fair, we acknowledge that this region is not exactly easy to brand. Like the Blackstone Valley outside Worcester and the Merrimack Valley in the northeast corner of the state, it is named, sort of, for the river that runs through it — hence Connecticut Valley. But that’s also the name of a neighboring state, and we want people and companies to come here, not go there, so that’s not going to work.

Meanwhile, the two or three things this area is perhaps most identified with (we said ‘perhaps’) are Dr. Seuss, basketball, and the guns once made at the Springfield Armory. But all those are tied directly to Springfield, and we want to promote the region, not just its biggest city. Meanwhile, it’s not politically correct to use guns to brand anything.

How about ‘Knowledge Corridor’ — the brand we’re already using, sort of? It’s OK, but only for attracting businesses, and it doesn’t seem to be working well in that realm, either. From a tourism perspective, it probably will be hard to get people worked up to visit the Knowledge Corridor.

So, we admit, rebranding the area is not an easy assignment. But West Mass?

It’s nothing more than a geographic indicator. It basically tells people that we’re ‘Massachusetts, but not Boston.’

It is possible, we suppose, that smart marketers could take ‘West Mass,’ mix it with some other words, pictures, and fonts, and maybe convey a powerful message that will resonate with individuals, families, and businesses. After all, people don’t have to do anything more than say ‘South Beach’ to whet a lot of appetites.

For now, though, as with most all Saturday Night Live episodes and presidential debates, ‘West Mass’ leaves us yearning for more, and saying ‘couldn’t they do any better than that?’

Here’s hoping they prove all us critics wrong.