Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.
Scott Elliott is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He writes about education, city and suburban issues, politics, business, workforce and consumer issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > November > 18
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Editorial: Dayton Region Rally never revved
Good intentions, awful form.
That’s how it felt at the Dayton Region Rally on Tuesday, Nov. 17.
Seventeen speakers on a program that ran two-plus hours. Maybe if the event had been less passive, maybe if even the spontaneity hadn’t been scripted, it might have been energizing.
But, man, this was homework. Thank goodness there weren’t many young people there, the very people the community desperately wants to attract to “work, live and play” in Dayton.
They would have been unimpressed. They would have been out of that arena.
After all, here we have an event — billed as a rally, as in pep, as in get excited, as in feel good about your team — that was built on lectures.
Who gave out those instructions? Who thought this design would whip up anyone?
There are some take-aways that just have to be on the table:
— This is the second marketing misstep by the Dayton Development Coalition.
Its branding effort — Get Midwest — is pedestrian and uninspired. Now this.
The coalition has bright, dedicated people doing important work. But the organization’s marketing instincts aren’t cutting it.
This event had money behind it; it was technically polished. But it did nothing meaningful to advance people’s perceptions of the region.
The crowd, estimated at 1,500 or so, was small. A great many in the audience either know about Dayton’s assets or they are employees of companies or organizations that asked their people to attend.
At 5 o’clock, the exodus was so pronounced that you’d have thought someone had rung a bell and yelled, “Quitting time.”
That must have been painful for the speakers who hadn’t gone yet. Some of this community’s best minds were asked to take on speaking roles that aren’t natural to them, that even they would say they’re not good at it.
— Dayton’s old boys need some new heads at the table.
If 20- and 30-somethings had planned this event, it would have looked so different. Speeches wouldn’t haven’t been allowed. There would have been memorable video mash-ups, there would have been skits and comedy, there would have been real audience participation.
Think about the scores they would have settled — hilariously — at NCR’s expense.
(Bruce Langos’ litany of reasons why his Teradata Corp. chose to remain in Dayton when the company spun off from NCR just touched on what could have been done.)
You got a taste of this difference in approach when the folks from Five Rivers MetroParks poured out of the audience and onto the arena floor with kayaks, bikes and backpacking gear when their boss started to speak.
The frolicking, of course, was staged, but it was possibly one of the lone moments of energy. That it was produced by a young workforce that is actually engaged in the things that the speakers were asked to talk, talk, talk about is telling.
If the event had been truly a community one, the big act wouldn’t have been an out-of-town artist. Michael Israel is gifted and entertaining, but what does producing a painting of the Statue of Liberty have to do with inspiring Dayton? Where were our artists?
There was not a person on the stage who isn’t passionate about Dayton or isn’t doing tremendous, important work in the community; some of the individuals are positively brilliant.
The projects they are involved in — developing insect-sized aerial vehicles that can attack, or spy on, our enemies, for instance — are great, even sexy, Dayton stories.
Their and their colleagues’ presence is transforming this region from being mainly a manufacturing hub to one where entrepreneurs and researchers are doing world-class work that is central to this country’s high-tech edge.
Those innovations are being cooked up in secret labs and in small start-up companies that are Dayton’s future and that already are competing well in the global marketplace.
The problem is not with Dayton’s stories. It has great ones. There’s just no innovation in how we tell — and sell — them.
Permalink | Comments (22) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Ellen Belcher
Editorial: Hospital’s rules slam into the rights of single women
The idea that a woman seeking in vitro fertilization would be asked to first show that she had a husband — and then get turned away only for being unmarried — feels like a throwback to another age.
That’s what happened to 40-year-old Karri O’Reilly at an office on the campus of Kettering Medical Center . Ms. O’Reilly is single, wants to have a baby and was seeking fertility treatment at Kettering Reproductive Medicine. The center is affiliated with Kettering Health Network, one of two large health care organizations — the other being Premier Health Partners — that dominate Dayton’s market.
Kettering is a private hospital, affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist faith. It is common for faith-based hospitals to decline to perform services, such as abortions, that violate their teachings. Apparently helping an unmarried woman become pregnant falls in this realm for Kettering, although the hospital says it is rethinking its policy following Ms. O’Reilly’s complaints.
After declining to treat Ms. O’Reilly, the center referred her to other clinics in Cincinnati that don’t have its restrictions.
Ms. O’Reilly, a Dayton filmmaker, believes Kettering must provide its services without regard to a patient’s marital status because the network receives federal dollars. The rule against serving unmarried people, she notes, also would prevent gay couples from being treated. (Ms. O’Reilly is not gay.)
Finally, she argues that these rules discriminate in a way that violates the network’s own non-discrimination policy.
The hospital has a strong defense in asserting that its doctors can legally decide whom to see as patients, especially for elective services. While the hospital network receives federal Medicare and Medicaid money for treating patients in its hospitals, it does not receive this money at its reproductive center.
The argument that this sort of policy discriminates against gays and unmarried individuals has been raised elsewhere. Last year, California’s Supreme Court ruled that, under that state’s anti-discrimination laws, religious considerations cannot be used to make judgments about who can receive fertility treatments.
Kettering, of course, is entitled to practice its religious principles, especially when they involve an elective procedure. But those who disagree are as entitled to be offended that a hospital would put itself in the position of presuming to judge who should be a mother.
Pregnancy is such a private matter, such a personal choice, that the prospect of having to explain and justify yourself feels incredibly invasive.
At a minimum, Kettering’s posture creates public-relations challenges for the network. It has been expanding its influence in the region. In parts of the Dayton area, Kettering is the primary provider of health care services. Kettering and its sister hospital Southview, for instance, serve much of Dayton’s south suburbs. Greene Memorial Hospital, which Kettering operates, is the only hospital in Greene County. The coming construction of a new Kettering-run hospital in Beavercreek will extend the network’s reach.
As it expands, Kettering seeks to provide health care for a wide spectrum of people. Drawing dividing lines between patients based on considerations like marital status could get dicey.
Kettering suggests that there might be some give in its position. Possibly if its relationship with the center is an arm’s-length one, it can side step the religious conflict and back down.
Meanwhile, Ms. O’Reilly isn’t alone in being taken aback.
Permalink | Comments (23) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Health Care, Scott Elliott
