Campus Free Speech

"University of Massachusetts Nursing Dean Fired After Saying 'Everyone's Life Matters'"


Prof. Jonathan Turley (GW) reports:

We have been discussing the growing fear of professors and students over the loss of free speech on campuses for years, but recently those concerns have been greatly magnified with the investigation or termination of professors for expressing opposing views about police abuse, Black Lives Matter movement or aspects of the protests following the killing of George Floyd.  There is a sense of a new orthodoxy that does not allow for dissenting voices as campaigns are launched to fire faculty who are denounced as insensitive or even racist for such criticism.

The most recent controversy involves the recently installed University of Massachusetts-Lowell Dean of Nursing Leslie Neal-Boylan. Dr. Neal-Boylan had only been in her position for a few months when she was fired.  The reason, according to many reports, is that she sent an email on June 2 to the Solomont School of Nursing on the recent anti-racism demonstrations across the country that include the words "everyone's life matters." …

I contacted the University to confirm (1) whether Dr. Neil-Boylan was fired for her statement about "everyone's life matters" and (2) whether she was given an opportunity to hear the complaints against her and to contest the allegations.

The university responded with this statement:

"Leslie Neal-Boylan's employment at UMass Lowell ended on June 19, after she was informed she would no longer serve as dean of the Solomont School of Nursing. She had been in that role for 10 months. Although a tenured full faculty member, she declined to join the nursing faculty. As with all such employment decisions, it was made in the best interests of the university and its students. Although we are not able to discuss specifics of a personnel matter, it would be incorrect to assume any statement by Dr. Neal-Boylan was the cause of that decision."

This suggests that there were other reasons for the termination but, if the letter posted from Dr. Neal-Boylan is accurate, she was not aware of what those reasons might be.  If she is unaware of those allegations, this would be a rather Orwellian position where the university protects her privacy by refusing to confirm the basis for her termination even to herself.  I was hoping that the University would at least say that she was given those reasons and an opportunity to defend herself.  Instead, the university did not deny the allegation that Dr. Neal-Boylan was denied the opportunity to respond and contest any allegations….

If her firing was unrelated to the statement ["everyone's life matters"], the University could have so stated without any violation of privacy. Such a clarification would have put to rest concerns over free speech.  Instead, there is lingering confusion ….

Prof. Turley also points to a story at Campus Reform (Addison Smith) that adds more:

One document provided to Campus Reform was allegedly written by Neal-Boylan and sent to Provost Julie Nash. The letter, dated June 19, begins, "As you know, I was fired from my position as dean in the Solomont School of Nursing…" The author claims that an exit interview was requested, but not granted.

"It is important to point out that no one ever gave me an opportunity to share my views of how the college and school were interacting nor explain myself regarding the BLM email. My meeting with you, [Dean] Shortie [McKinney], and Lauren Turner was clearly not intended to give me an opportunity to defend my actions. I was condemned without trial," the letter obtained by Campus Reform reads.

McKinney did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Campus Reform.

Another document provided to Campus Reform, dated June 16, is addressed to UML Chancellor Jacqueline Moloney and Provost Joseph Hartman. That letter states, in part,  "It seems clear that College Dean McKinney used my email regarding Black Lives Matter (BLM) as rationale to fire me. This is attributable to one phrase in my initial email that otherwise was very clearly a message to NOT discriminate against anyone…It is clear that Dean McKinney used this as an excuse because my performance as dean has otherwise been without fault and has, in fact, strengthened the SSON. You might be interested to know that I have NEVER (in a 40 year career) been accused of racism."

The same letter went on to list 13 "accomplishments" from the "past 10 months."

Campus Reform spoke with one faculty member who asked to remain anonymous. The source said the faculty was "totally dismayed" and "completely floored" by Neal-Boylan's termination. It was allegedly determined that her firing was not due to performance, the source said.

"The Dean of the College of Health Sciences, Shortie Mckinney, had a meeting the day after [the incident], a town meeting… People wanted to know why [she was fired], and what was confirmed is it wasn't a performance issue," the source told Campus Reform.

The employee said that the faculty discovered the backlash against Neal-Boylan on Twitter and "put two-and-two together," determining the reason behind her firing, adding that it was not performance-based.

"After some investigation, we found the [tweets], and some of the comments that were posted, and put two-and-two together," the source said. "She [Neal-Boylan] was a wonderful woman…. When she came on board, it was like a ray of sunshine."

There may be more facts that might shed a different light on the matter; but if the facts as reported by Prof. Turley (whose work I've found reliable) and Campus Reform are generally representative, the University's actions strike me as quite improper. As I've mentioned before, the First Amendment and academic freedom rules aren't quite the same for administrators as for faculty. (Compare Jeffries v. Harleston (2d Cir. 1995) with Levin v. Harleston (2d Cir. 1992).) Administrators are politicians of a sort, and questions about how various constituencies perceive them are more legitimately considered than for faculty.

Nonetheless, if Dean Neal-Boylan was fired simply for expressing the view that "everyone's life matters"—which in context is reasonably seen as an argument that the Black Lives Matter movement focuses too much on the perils faced by blacks from the police, and that the better goal is to try to prevent police abuse more broadly (or violence more broadly)—that's a very narrow-minded position for the university to take. And this position is also sure to send a chilling message to people other than Deans, such as faculty members (especially untenured ones) and students.

NEXT: "Shitty Media Men" List Libel Lawsuit Can Go Forward

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Too much time and money are spent on labor litigation, and she wouldn’t be faulted for just enjoying her retirement, but this could be a worthy fight on behalf of the earlier career folks facing the intolerant mob’s gags.

    1. She should go full Kaepernick?

    2. Either they have to honor tenure in ALL cases…or they should end it. Current system is not a functional option.

      1. The school vindicated tenure when it offered a faculty position.

        Other than that, though, great comment!

  2. Uggh. Of course she shouldn’t be fired.

      1. Is that you, Soupy?

      2. I don’t know how this wound up here — my venom is directed at those who would fire her.

    1. We are in the middle of a moral panic. A moral panic about a legitimate issue, to be sure, but a moral panic still.

      1. More an unbalanced force.

        Outside of an irrelevant fringe, there is no one who says that what happened to George Floyd was right. So there’s no balance to the extremes of BLM, there is nothing to serve as a check on it’s excesses.

  3. Considering the number of years “all men are created equal” didn’t apply to black people, I’m not sure I can blame those who find “all lives matter” lacking in assurance. It might even be taken to mean black lives don’t matter.

    1. If you use George Orwell’s works as a manual rather than consider them as a warning.

    2. Boohoo every race gets boned. There is no other place in the world European countries have meddled with attacked and generally tried to screw over than neighboring Europeans. If they weak they would have and have been enslaved. If Europeans were weak enough compared to Africans they would have and have been enslaved. What stands between the role reversal was the barrel of a gun and not the ironically racist notion that Europeans are inherently more diabolical. Its not a matter of whose white or whos black its whos strong and who’s weak. Stand up or you’ll be taken for all you’ve got no matter what your skin color is. As the weak whites will find out to their cost as they become kaffirs in their own countries.

      1. Of course the difference is who’s strong and who’s weak. But it is not supposed to be that way.

        There are many spheres and measures in life. No one dominates at everything on his/her own. Nor is one’s position in life entirely due to one’s own merit. Risk and luck are constant factors in everyday life. Because of such uncertainty, I ask myself how it would feel to be in the other guys shoes (or lack of shoes). Somewhere down the road, it is quite likely I will find myself in the other guy’s shoes, where I must hope for someone to ask what it is like to be me. By common reciprocity there is common good. It means everyone gets to play to his/her strengths, despite his/her weaknesses. That’s how a group works optimally, and is the way things are supposed to be.

        Then there are cheaters.

    3. “Considering the number of years “all men are created equal” didn’t apply to black people, I’m not sure I can blame those who find “all lives matter” lacking in assurance. It might even be taken to mean black lives don’t matter.”

      This is Massachusetts, not Mississippi….

    4. Considering the number of years “all men are created equal” didn’t apply to black people,

      Zero? You mean zero? Why not say ‘zero’ then?

      All men ARE created equal. Always were always have been.

      Being enslaved does not alter that fact.

      Because while all men are created equal, things that men do can have an impact on that equality.

      I’m not sure I can blame those who find “all lives matter” lacking in assurance. It might even be taken to mean black lives don’t matter.

      That’s because they don’t.

      Group lives DON’T matter. Only YOUR life matters. To you, and to those who care about you.

      Because even at the worst–if someone kills you because of a group you belong to that killing does nothing to the group. But it does end YOU.


      1. “Group lives DON’T matter. Only YOUR life matters”

        That’s the difference between us and them.
        We are individuals, they are members of a group.

        1. There’s a lot I could say about this, but it’s kind of perfect as is.

    5. So having other people’s lives not matter is the solution?

      1. Its sorta like a swastika.
        A swastika might mean many things – Roman, I believe even Chinese (monks?).
        There is however a big problem, the symbol of a swastika has been co-opted by the Nazis.
        So too bad, you can no longer use it outside of that context.
        The phrase “All lives matter” is considered a direct attack on “Black Lives Matter”. Doesn’t matter how you parse it.

        The real irony of all this is that in the medical profession, all lives should matter.

        1. It’s still frequently used in many parts of the world, particularly by Hindus. It’s possible that a Hindu displaying a Hindu presentation of the swastika for Hindu purposes in places like the US might encounter some hostility, but such hostility would be ridiculously ignorant and intolerant.

    6. If a house is on fire, and the fire department shows up and starts dousing every house on the street because “all houses matter”, people would understand that that’s not the point. Of course all houses matter, but at this particular moment there is one specific house in need of special attention.

      Which also happens to be the reason “all lives matter” tends to ring hollow. Of course they do, and when whites begin experiencing discrimination and police brutality in numbers comparable to blacks, then that will be something to talk about. For now, the members of one race in particular are in need of special attention, just like the house that’s actually on fire.

      1. If we use your logic… which does have some good points… then you would have to agree that even Black Lives Matter fails for the same reason All Lives fails.
        Yes, all lives matrer… but they aren’t all suffering from THIS ailment.
        Yes, (all) black lives matter… but they aren’t all suffering from THIS ailment.

        You see the problem? Obama and Oprah and Lebron… they face less of a chance of being abused by the police than I do… a no-body white guy in middle America. I am closer (albeit not THAT close) to the true victim groups than they are even though they are black.

        And in the fire scenario… yes, the house on fire needs attention. But there is no “group” of blue houses that need more attention because they are blue… even if the house on fire is blue. ONLY the houses ACTUALLY on fire need attention at that time. Any grouping that throws a blanket on more than the actual issue creates collective guilt/innocence dichotomies. And individuals understand the failings of being blamed for group membership. Just as a black man understood that HE was not guilty for the crimes of other blacks, a white person understands they are not guilty for other whites who are racist.

        That is why the only accurate statements are all lives matter, each life matters, or HIS/HER life matters. Anything else creates more in/out groups along with the moral failings that come with thinking of the world as composed of such groups.

        1. “Just as a black man understood that HE was not guilty for the crimes of other blacks..”

          It’s been 30 years and I doubt many of these young activists have even heard of Willie Horton or Charles Jaynes. Horton is the murderer who walked away from a Michael Dukakas furlough and proceeded to rape a woman in Maryland (etc.) — it was used in election ads by both by Al Gore and then Bush 41.

          Charles Jaynes raped & murdered a 10-year old boy, dumping his body in a river on the ME/NH border. The case almost brought the death penalty back to Massachusetts.

          But it was wrong to say that Willie Horton reflected on all Black men, or that Charles Jaynes reflected on all gay men — and that’s what BLM doesn’t understand.

          1. Given my upper middle class boss, who happens to be black, gets pulled over regularly (“black man driving a nice car”????), and I speeding with my sports car haven’t been pulled over for years, I would suggest that perhaps its the police that are making the association between skin color and possibility of criminal intent/action etc. BLM is a reminder for the police and politicians who might have forgotten a group (or two) when they say “all lives matter”
            So long as its “us vs them” we (all of us) have a problem.

            1. YOUR boss versus YOU is still just proof of the reality of only two people. There are some whites who get pulled over more than some blacks. Exceptions do not prove rules… by definition they DISprove rules. The existence of any black person who suffers less than any white person at the hands of the police proves that the issue is a result of individuals interacting with individuals. If it were a rule, then BLM would have an argument… but it isn’t and they don’t. Just because the last three blacks pulled over by cops were mistreated does not mean the next one will. And since we are individuals and not coins being flipped, you can’t simply use probability as proof of malice among actors (or the inverse… determine victimhood based on probability). That is why the collective ideology (and by extension collective language) is the single greatest threat to resolving what is otherwise a real issue.

        2. Obama and Oprah and Lebron are outliers and their experience does not match the experience of most blacks. And while you are right that a non racist white is not guilty of racism, that’s not the point. Racism can only be fixed by whites. So the onus is on whites to do something about it.

          1. Racism can only he solved by individuals calling out racists. It has nothing to do with race. To say otherwise is to say that the capacity to be malicious based on race is genetically linked to skin color. Yet that doesn’t hold up. I am a very small minority within the community where I work (I teach at a predominantly Hispanic high school). I have been judged and disparaged for my race by students and other coworkers. To say that I have not experienced those things is to, to borrow a phrase of the collective, cancel my truth. You don’t get to do that. Your worldview must be able to account for all things that happen in reality. In certain enclaves across the nation, whites are not in any real power, they are huge minorities, etc. The US does not have an even spread of races. As such, the on-the-ground experiences of a black person in parts of Atlanta where these are neighborhoods of predominantly successful black Americans is going to be vastly different than a poor white person in Compton. Any attempt to universalize across a whole group is to ignore reality.

          2. Can you explain why the onus is on me?

            I’ve been non-racist for decades yet still are called racist.

            So, screw em. Find it easier to attack imaginary foes than take personal responsibility? Don’t expect allies.

            1. Because you enjoy the benefits of racism. Even if you, personally, are not racist you still enjoy the blessings of white privilege. So long as you’re happy to take them while doing nothing to end them, you’re part of the problem.

              Plus there are some problems that can only be solved collectively and racism is one of them. Asking the group most responsible for the problem to fix it is hardly unreasonable.

              1. “Because you enjoy the benefits of racism.”

                That is false.

                “Even if you, personally, are not racist you still enjoy the blessings of white privilege.”

                White privilege does not, in any way, exist.

                “So long as you’re happy to take them while doing nothing to end them, you’re part of the problem.”

                That is factually untrue. You may be consumed with guilt, perhaps well-deserved, but your issues are not my issues.

                “Plus there are some problems that can only be solved collectively and racism is one of them. Asking the group most responsible for the problem to fix it is hardly unreasonable.”

                While I am impressed, deeply so, at your impressive virtue signalling, literally nothing you wrote is actually factual.

                1. OK, you may not be racist (though based on your posts I’d like to see more evidence of that before I commit myself). But clueless and tone deaf? Yup, that you are.

      2. Whites already experience killing at the hand of the police at the same rate as blacks. So we really need to work to equalize the rate of non-lethal harrassment. Maybe we should institute an affirmative action policy that requires every cop who subjects a black driver to a traffic stop to pull over four random white drivers for “burned out taillights.”

        1. Bad choice, you can prove your tail lights are lit. Better choice is weaving in lane and suspicion of DUI. You prove you didn’ t weave in lane!

    7. Considering the number of years “all men are created equal” didn’t apply to black people

      And what changed that?

      Wasn’t it the argument that “all” ought to mean “all” and one was being hypocritical if one didn’t include Black people as part of the “all”?

      That was the message back then — equality.
      Today, I don’t think it is anymore…

      1. It was the argument about the definition of a “man”.

        As for what the message is…. by just about every yardstick you can imagine, black people are not equal to white counter part in the US society. Why is that?
        So the message might be “equality” “back then”, however the reality never matched up to that message.
        BLM is just a reminder that in one particular aspect, that can be affected rather quickly by government, blacks are being treated unequally.

        1. From early 1900s to the 1960s the trend among nearly every metric was approaching parity between blacks and whites… all during Jim Crow etc. From the 1960s to now… those metrics are trending towards greater disparity. So why is that? If racism is the culprit you would have to claim that we are more racist now than the first half of the 1900s. That seems ridiculous. So perhaps something else is at play? Perhaps the policy changes of the 60s have had a disparate impact on black families that had led to greater degrees of poverty among their communities? That these policies have only been increased and entrenched thereby further continuing and exacerbating the problem of poverty? And given that in ANY other setting not related to race we would all agree that poverty and family stability are the greatest indicators of future criminality… why is it that as soon as race is introduced people ignore the things that exist under race, causing the disparate outcomes for differing communities that then puts undue influence on some people of those communities which leads to behaviors that lead to issues with police? Perhaps life is a little more complex than “everything bad is because of the white devil.”

          As further proof that there may be issues underlying what we see that aren’t based on race… immigrant blacks out perform American born blacks in nearly every metric. But if racism is the issue then the downward pressure on success by a racist system should not allow for some blacks to be successful… the race is the same for both native born and immigrant blacks. Why doesn’t racism impact them even remotely similarly? Perhaps it is because of the different cultures cultivated among blacks in other nations versus the culture cultivated here in the US because of the structural issues unique to here.

        2. It’s all because of racism?

          No personal choices? No cultural choices? ONLY evil whitey?

        3. Unequal results does not imply racism. In fact, there is no racism, which is why people focus on the unequal results. There are many explanations for unequal results. “Racism” is explanation with the least evidence supporting it.

    8. I don’t care whether you find it “lacking in assurance”. You have no right to be “assured”, snowflake. Evidently you only support speech that offends no one. That’s equivalent to being an opponent of freedom of speech.

  4. “If you’re the right race and if you have insurance, your life matters! All you uninsured and untermenschen get over there so that if your case is particularly interesting, we can experiment on you.”

  5. The problem with touting “all lives matter” is it denies the reality that all too often black lives are the only ones that don’t matter. Nonetheless, that belief is not a firing offense.

    1. This is complete sophistry especially when applied to a nursing school where black applicants are likely admitted with records half as impressive as the median admit.

    2. Black lives matter, except that some black lives matter more than others. Each year, cops across the United States kill the same number of blacks as are killed by other blacks just in Chicago. Apparently, though, black lives only matter when they’re taken by police rather than by each other.

      1. The argument is that black lives are being killed by police because they are black. In contrast, other black lives are not lost because they are black, except perhaps because they are trapped in shitty segregated neighborhoods that breed crime.

        1. Josh,
          It is more likely because they are black with the wrong black associates.

        2. An argument advances by idiots who don’t understand what normalization means. Let me know when a study normalizes the rate at which people are killed by police with the education level, economic strata, and police per sq mi in an area. Then we can talk about racism.

      2. So everything is OK as long as the police don’t kill more than each other? So you are saying the police are no better?
        No higher standard?

    3. No its the opposite. We screech to a halt as a nation everytime a black person gets killed by the cops but nobody cares about any white skinned person who is ventilated. I’m sorry that you’re living on a nother planet and don’t know whats actually happening in reality.

      1. You think whites are getting the short of the end stick? Amazing!

        1. If you’re interested, you can easily find DOJ statistics regarding murder and the percentage of perpetrators and victims by race. Blacks are severely over-represented on both sides of that equation. And when it comes to inter-racial murder, more whites are killed by blacks in absolute terms – and when you factor percentage of the total population the ratio of BKW to WKB is something like 7:1.

    4. How exactly does it deny anything much less your absurd assertion that “black lives are the only ones that don’t matter”. You have to support such allegations not just state them as if you think they are self evident truths. Have you ever noticed that more white people die by cop than black people?

      1. Per capita, more blacks die. On the other hand, per police encounter, there is no racial bias. On the other hand, there is evidence that police encounters are racially biased. And even if they are not, at the very least law-abiding blacks are disparately impacted.

        1. Not really, not if you consider it on a per crime basis and if you do they statistics show black underrepresentation not overrepresentation.

        2. Per capita comparisons for racism only matter when all other factors are normalized for or if you wanted to check whether the cops were shooting people literally at random. As neither case is true it’s a useless fucking metric.

          1. We don’t know what the answer is when all other factors are normalized. It’s possible police encounters are racially biased, in which case the killings are too. It’s also possible police encounters aren’t racially biased, in which case the killings aren’t directly racially biased. But in that case, there may be indirect racial bias because other factors such as education level and economic strata result from racial bias (shitty, segregated neighborhoods). And finally even if after accounting for all other factors, there is no direct or indirect racial bias, there is still a disparate impact on law-abiding blacks.

            1. Please explain how shitty education is a function of racial bias when areas like the DC public school system are among the highest per capita funded in the US. Or for that matter economic strata seeing as prior to all the welfare programs black economic indicators were steadily rising and the percentage of black people in poverty steadily dropping. After the institution of which it immediately plateaued and then started to very slowly rise.

              1. Shitty segregated neighborhoods, which are driven by racism, are the likely underlying cause of disparities in education and economic well being.

                1. What racism causes Chinatown or Little Saigon or the Latin quarter? Do blacks aim to live in white neighborhoods if possible? We wanted a pluralistic society before identity politics took over.

          2. “Per capita comparisons for racism only matter when all other factors are normalized”

            Says who? Correlation does not prove causation, however it is necessary for causation.

            So you can correlate on neighborhoods, skin color, income, education etc. etc. Each of these areas might have a problem.

            Your statement is only correct if you are looking for the single, smoking gun causation.
            My hypothesis is there is a racial problem, and the solution is not a simple one.

    5. Baloney. Black lives don’t matter when they are snuffed out by other Blacks. Black lives matter only the miniscule number of times (particularly compared with statistics as to black-on-black violent crime or, for that matter, statistics on black-on-white violent crime) when they are snuffed out by white police officers, even if (as in the Michael Brown incident) that killing was justified.

    6. Lives Matter.

      If you have to put a color in front of it, you’re a racist.

    7. “The problem with touting “all lives matter” is it denies the reality that all too often black lives are the only ones that don’t matter.”

      Like anything else, it depends on context. People often say “all lives matter” to argue that there is not a problem with the way police use force against black people. Of course, this is a perfectly legitimate belief, though one might disagree with it, but it is very unpopular in some quarters nowadays.

      But that’s not the context here, and firing this women is nuts.

      1. I agree with your opinion on the context of her statement, but I nonetheless think in that context her statement is bad, but not a firing offense.

        1. Her job was to be the head of a school where the grads are supposed to treat EVERYBODY. Her statement couldn’t have been more apropos.

          But she was fired, so hey, racism is over now.

    8. One problem is that “Black Lives Matter” is a slogan, not a literal statement. People who take it literally get into trouble and the people pushing it have no desire to let anyone off the hook. Another problem is that precisely what BLM means (or “Defund the Police”) differs from person to person. This is a formula for disaster.

      1. People need to start requesting the rioters and looters to define what exactly they mean by the terms they just toss around so flippantly.

        Many activists idea of what “white supremacy” is falls far below what the average person thinks they mean.

    9. The BLM protestors who founded CHAZ killed about 1/4 the number of unarmed blacks than police did nationally in 2019.

      Tell me more about how much black lives matters to BLM…

    10. “…is it denies the reality that all too often…”

      It’s not a reality, it’s just a lie that is repeated over and over again, and when anyone challenges it they get cancelled. Lies are never enough, they require a corresponding suppression of opposing viewpoints because nothing is more fragile than a lie.

  6. Each life matters.

    1. Context matters.

      1. “Context matters.” In this context, what do you mean?

  7. “All lives matter” is a good slogan for humanitarians. And for vegans, except for what we do to plants. To date, has any court found this statement to be racist and objectionable?

    From the account here, it sure looks as if a good person was treated very shabbily, from the insinuations to the silence to the potential harm done to her chances of comparable employment.

      1. Yes, very good, at least for purposes other than administrative emails, apparently.

        Not to be argumentative, though, could the same people still object and say such sentiment must become “Each black life matters,” else it be implicitly racist or dismissive?

        Why is it we think any slogan, much less very specifically worded ones, actually help anyone? There’s just anger, rock-throwing, and offense constantly taken over just this slogan.

        To treat “Black Lives Matter” as a stand-in for all blacks who have suffered is as demeaning and dismissive and maybe even racist as could be. Not all blacks live, work, and think alike and are saddled with existential self-hatred and disrespect to the point they need be reminded their lives matter and reduced to an inviolable slogan to remind all non-blacks that they matter.

        When tied to the police abuse problem, they might encounter statistics that show it’s pretty much an equal opportunity situation when it comes to LEO abuse and shootings. The cry would resonate with real, actionable concern were it tied to the terrible slaughter of blacks in gang and crime-ridden parts of American cities.

        The worst bug/ feature of the slogan is that it is the name of a political, far-left group that espouses terrible violence and purports to stand for all black Americans when it doesn’t. Those who don’t support that group’s cause should be able to voice support for an inclusive good hope for everyone without having to endorse the name of that group.

        1. Any response is questionable. The only benefit of “Each life matters” is its newness, and its difference; it will make them think for a second or two. Once they hear it a few times, it will have no more use.

  8. Quite improper- wow don’t be so excitable. For true outrage she’d need to be named Rachel Glibstein-Kurtz I guess.

    1. I don’t usually agree with Arthur Kirkland’s take on this blog and its audience. But sometimes it can be a little tough.

      1. “I don’t usually agree with Arthur Kirkland’s take on this blog and its audience. But sometimes it can be a little tough.”

        Yah think so? I long ago stopped reading his obnoxious and substantively useless comments. I see his name on the top of a comment and I skip it.

        1. You are just the kind of reader I am happy to lose. You can await replacement without me, just as society will progress without you.

  9. Cops need to start killing more whites and Asians to get the statistics closer to even so blacks won’t have anything to complain about.

    1. “Cops need to start killing more whites and Asians to get the statistics closer to even so blacks won’t have anything to complain about.”
      I once worked in a law enforcement agency. My boss told me we were prosecuting too many blacks. I asked him how many whites did we need to prosecute for every black that we prosecuted. He got angry at me.

      1. Same thing with school suspensions. 10-11 years ago, Obama insisted on racial parity in suspensions. That was the end of suspensions, schools became zoos.

        1. And led to the Parkland shootings.

          1. EXACTLY. The perp was listed as a minority and hence couldn’t be suspended.

          2. AND Saint Trayvon. He was suspended instead of, turned over to the Police for Possession of stolen goods and burglary tools.

  10. Whats funny is that accepting the BLM argument that all groups commit crime at an equal rate invalidates another core leftist belief that poverty causes crime. So I guess all that money we’re spending to reduce poverty isn’t as important since we all have an inborn tendency to commit a set amount of crime no matter what just like the racists say.

    1. Heritage did a study that controlled for the varying rates of single parenthood and guess what – Black poverty equals regular poverty.

      It’s the boys without fathers that are causing the problem.

      1. Which is why single women who get pregnant out of wedlock should be forcibly sterilized.

  11. The entirety of the First Amendment is largely irrelevant at this point: most corporations (most recently, Clorox) and other donors now have speech guidelines in place and direct funding away from entities (including Facebook and multiple universities) which elect not to self-police speech. It is as sad to watch as it is to watch armed officers arresting folks whose restaurant seat is askew (violating revised distancing rules put in place less than an hour before). The fluidity is alarming: not only are freedoms withdrawn but the required “new normal” is not knowable.

    As a comment above hints, talking — particularly taking before tribunals — is unlikely to have the necessary force to right the ship.

    1. Except here, we have a state institution, subject to te 1st Amdt

    2. its okay because corporations are repressing speech and not the government!

    3. Nah, government just has to remove all roadblocks in the way preventing smaller competitors from replacing the dinosaurs like Clorox.

      Few people are less capitalist than corporate CEO’s. Marx was more supportive of capitalism than a CEO is.

    4. It never occurred you to that the University of Massachusetts might be a state school?

  12. 30 years ago, I warned that perstulant cesspool that they’d have a Klan chapter if they kept it up — now I say they NEED a Klan chapter because it is the only thing that will restore balance.

    It’s time to say this: Fuck umASS — the sooner that the scorched earth of upset alumni and taxpayers shuts it all down the better!

    1. One way or another, WHITE MALES NEED TO MATTER, TOO….

    2. umASS attitude is to ignore student concerns until the group does something really obnoxious, and then they pander to them.

  13. Lives don’t matter – except mine!

    1. The universe is laughing behind your back.
      You will die as well, get over it.

  14. If we accept as true that the reason she was fired was because of any statement that she made, I agree.

    The university’s denial here is self-serving and self-contradictory. It essentially says: “We can’t talk about the specifics of any personnel matter, but… let’s talk about the specifics of a particular personnel matter so that we can deny X.”

    Who knows what the facts are for sure. What they are has nothing to do with Professor Turley’s reliability or credibility, since he also has limited information. But if she was fired for her speech here, that is definitely wrong.

    1. The plot thickens — he wrote:
      “Dr. Neal-Boylan was heralded last September as a “visionary leader” by the university in taking over the deanship. Her writings include strong advocacy for those with disabilities in the nursing field. Those writings show tremendous empathy and concern for inclusivity in the profession.”

      Persons with disabilities will roughly reflect population demographics, and Massachusetts is 83.2% White and 8.8% Black. What this means is that if you are advocating for people with disabilities qua disabilities, you are advocating for a lot of people who are also White, and that’s not popular.

  15. Hope you never end up in any hospital associated with the University of Massachusetts or with a University of Massachusetts nurse, as every life does not matter to these people, which means your life does not matter to these people.

    1. Sad but true — there are some really racist Black nurses in Massachusetts — I encountered one last winter.

  16. I also find it interesting that it is the Zuckerberg College of Life Sciences…

  17. I checked with the Ministry of Truth, and they have confirmed that the statement “all lives matter” is false.

  18. I do not think one should be fired for expressing one’s opinion

    However, ‘All lives matter’ is the 2020 version of saying ”rapists should be hanged’ after a lynching

    Not knowing you are repeating a racist meme is no excuse for doing so

    1. racists eat food so why don’t you go starve yourself?

    2. Since when is “all lives matters” a racist theme

      Is 14A racist?

      1. There are people who seriously believe that the ‘All Lives Matter’ mantra is racist at its core. They believe that it’s diminishing the message of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement / protesters, and deliberately avoiding the problem of racism, so that racism can continue.

        On the other hand, you have people who hear ‘Black Lives Matter’ and think that it means ‘Only Black Lives Matter’ to the people who use it. That’s why they are inclined to push back against that.

        I think that most people in both camps are talking past each other, and not listening.

        1. Some people believe the ok sign is white power too. Tin Foil Hats fit all kinds of people, including POC. If all lives don’t matter, why should I give a rip about Black ones as especially valuable?

    3. However, ‘All lives matter’ is the 2020 version of saying ”rapists should be hanged’ after a lynching

      Rapists shouldn’t be hanged?

      Wait–you’re suggesting that not only were all people who were lynched black, all people who were lynched were innocent, too.

      Aren’t you?

      One of the things people today don’t seem to grasp is that the world was much smaller then. These things were immediate and local. You weren’t getting people who’d heard about it in the 24 hour news cycle flying or busing in.

      Often, you were getting fast vigilante justice happening within moments of the crime happening.

      The kind of justice that’ll be making a big comeback once the cops are defunded.

      1. And a third of those lynched were White.

      2. Wait–you’re suggesting that not only were all people who were lynched black, all people who were lynched were innocent, too.

        Were they proven guilty? Or do you think it’s OK to lynch someone if you’re “sure” they did it?

        Though note that in many cases, there was no “it,” no crime that they were even accused of.

    4. So now you’re defending rapists?

  19. Her getting fired is only eliminating the bigotory of the backward people. Rev AK should be proud of the speed which we are moving to the progressive & elighted utopia he proudly advocates for.

  20. Is this the famous Professor of Impeachment Turley? I guess you could say he’s reliable in some sense.

    Here is how he concludes his post:

    If her firing was unrelated to the statement, the University could have so stated without any violation of privacy. Such a clarification would have put to rest concerns over free speech. Instead, there is lingering confusion, including with the subject of the action.

    Here is the last sentence in statement of the university:

    Although we are not able to discuss specifics of a personnel matter, it would be incorrect to assume any statement by Dr. Neal-Boylan was the cause of that decision.”

    So what does Turley want?

    1. umASS not to act like umASS.

    2. Bernard, I assume you can see through the wording here. They did not say “the statement was not the cause of the decision”. They merely said it was wrong to assume it, or in simpler words, “you have no proof”.

      Reminds me of a meeting where a bunch of us were complaining to our dean that he hadn’t addressed a long standing problem.

      Faculty: “It’s been a year and you haven’t done anything.”
      Dean: “How do you know I didn’t do anything? Maybe I did something but kept it secret.”
      Faculty: “Well, did you?”
      Dean: “That’s not the point. Maybe I did and maybe I didn’t. The point is you don’t know, so it’s wrong for you to complain.”

      Needless to say that failed to put the issue to rest.

  21. Something about this does not make sense. I realize that currently that is a hilarious statement. However, if this woman was tenured faculty ‘elsewhere,’ she would have some process rights as to termination of that position, if not as to the nursing school deanship. It appears that someone wants to queue up a controversy here. I want more information before rushing to judgment. You know, old-timey and all.

    1. “she would have some process rights as to termination of that position’

      She decided not to return to the faculty. Campus Reform has her letter, looks like UML lost her 3 new hires — my guess is that some sane university will pick up a nursing program. And nursing is one of the few undergrad degrees where you can walk into a good paying job upon graduation.

  22. In a more amusing world, she puts out statement that denying all lives matter to Allah is not adherence to true Islam, and that her critics were Islamaphobes. Unless she is rehired than the world’s 1 billion Muslims will “take issue” with it.

  23. I wanted to share this article with others but, incivility prevents me. I’m retired so there is less risk of business or professional damage for merely posting this article but sadly it’s not worth the risks. The intolerance is not new. Students are browbeat into submission by authoritarians.

    In 1987 I was in law school taking a Civil Rights Seminar course. We had a guest speaker who was a newer US Congressman from Florida. I asked a question about the uniformity of the application of strict scrutiny in race-related litigation and jurisprudence. I was told ” be quiet. You are white and you need to understand that only white people can be racist.” Hint. The Congressman is still in Congress and he is the only Congressman who was impeached and removed from the federal district court bench. Social Justice Warrior group think has been around for decades

    1. I like to remind people that Hillary Clinton was a “Goldwater Girl” in 1964, the same year that the MSP arrested two Smith College professors for “suspicion of homosexuality.”

      Change comes fast in American society and those who had been running things are the ones who least expect it. Who in 1964 could have anticipated what the country looked like a decade later?

      Higher education *is* imploding and you’ll see a very different attitude from the majority-White BLM when they don’t have a trust fund anymore….

    2. Hastings is a despicable human being. The good news is that he has Stage 4 pancreatic cancer, so this disgusting vermin should be dead soon.

      1. You forgot to add, “and in Hell.”

  24. “The source said the faculty was “totally dismayed” and “completely floored” by Neal-Boylan’s termination.”

    Is the faculty so powerless? I find that hard to believe. In fact, I expect that the faculty should have enough influence to get some administrators fired.

    1. Why would they be surprised at this?
      It is the stated goal of the socialists they so admire.
      What they forget is that one of the first groups up against the wall after the real socialists take over are the teachers.

    2. You fail to understand just how truly fascist umASS has become.
      It changed about 15 years ago.

    3. Campus reform appears to be quoting one source only.

  25. These comments precipitate a question:

    Do conservative blogs generate bigots, or merely attract them?

    Maybe put Blackman on that one.

    1. Well, you’re here, so I guess the answer is “attract them”.

    2. Well, this blog brings out at least one bigot consistently. Let’s see if you can guess who it is? Bonus points for you if you do.

      1. Rev Al Kirkland is a religious bigot today and every day.

  26. I think it is clear to liberals that ALL LIVES DO NOT MATTER.

    Abortion – well unborn kids don’t matter.
    Wrong race – just go ahead and die.
    Wrong gender – sit down and shut up.
    Wrong political opinion – no job for you, have fun feeding your family.

    At least they are becoming consistent with their messaging now.

    1. Getting stomped in the culture war by better Americans has made you guys cranky.

      Open wider, clingers.

      1. F*** you. I hope you get a tumor.

        1. Good thing you didn’t actually spell out the word “fuck”—that would have been very uncivil!

          1. Probably put the * more so a filter didn’t get it then ethical objection to the word. But I don’t think the Reason filters (at least not in this section) are that heavy handed. The “n-word” doesn’t even trigger it.

      2. Can’t wait for AK to have this attitude when the Grand Reset comes….

      3. Self-affirmation conditioning studies find that if, before you start to try to change somebody’s mind, you first ask them to remember something that gave them a positive view of themselves, they’re more likely to be open to facts and to change their opinions. People who feel good about themselves are more likely to be open-minded!

      4. Don’t

        Get personal. Direct attacks on your opponent’s lifestyle, integrity or honesty should be avoided. Attack the issue not the person. If the other party attacks you then you can take the high ground e.g.’ I am surprised at you making personal attacks like that. I think it would be better if we stuck to the main issue here rather than maligning people.’
        Get distracted. Your opponent may try to throw you off the scent by introducing new and extraneous themes. You must be firm. ‘That is an entirely different issue which I am happy to discuss later. For the moment let’s deal with the major issue at hand.’
        Water down your strong arguments with weak ones. If you have three strong points and two weaker ones then it is probably best to just focus on the strong. Make your points convincingly and ask for agreement. If you carry on and use the weaker arguments then your opponent can rebut them and make your overall case look weaker.

  27. There may be more facts that might shed a different light on the matter; but if the facts as reported by Prof. Turley (whose work I’ve found reliable) and Campus Reform are generally representative, the University’s actions strike me as quite improper.

    Here is a question.

    Let’s suppose, contrary to what a lot of people want to think, that it is accurate to say, as the university did, that,

    it would be incorrect to assume any statement by Dr. Neal-Boylan was the cause of that decision.”

    What else should they say that would not violate Neal-Boylan’s privacy?

    1. They could have said NOTHING.

    2. “ would be incorrect to assume any statement by Dr. Neal-Boylan was the cause of that decision…”

      That sounds terribly weasely. Perhaps it’s just that academics are too smart to communicate in a straightforward manner, but if her termination was unrelated to her statement, they could say, “Her termination was unrelated to her statement.”


    Meanwhile, in black run America, obnoxious black women are allowed to unlawfully detail, harass, and threaten pregnant white women, and the whites are the “criminals” if they defend themselves.

  29. Sounds like a case of race discrimination as well. Firing some for saying that the lives of people of her own race matter just as much as blacks can’t be allowed.

  30. It’s really going to stink if the medical profession adopts critical theory.

  31. I think everyone should read this essay by George Orwell: Notes on Nationalism:

Please to post comments