A new critique argues that student teaching evaluations are structurally unreliable and can erode academic integrity by rewarding leniency over rigor. The piece points to research showing little or no correlation between instructor ratings and student learning outcomes, along with studies finding bias tied to factors like instructor gender and course difficulty. It also describes an incentive problem: when career advancement depends heavily on student satisfaction metrics, faculty may soften standards to protect evaluations. The analysis warns that over time institutions may signal that rigor is a professional liability, undermining culture around academic standards. The critique calls for universities to redesign evaluation incentives rather than treating student ratings as a primary proxy for teaching effectiveness.