A new argument in the faculty assessment debate says student teaching evaluations are structurally misaligned with teaching effectiveness, pushing institutions toward lower rigor and weakening academic integrity. The piece notes that in many universities, student evaluations can account for 70% to 100% of faculty teaching assessment, despite evidence showing weak links between ratings and learning outcomes. The article cites research on bias and incentive effects, including findings that course difficulty and instructor gender can influence evaluations and that instructors who challenge students may receive lower scores even when students perform better later. It frames the incentive problem as a choice between maintaining rigor and avoiding professional consequences. For higher education leaders, the practical risk is cultural: when evaluations reward leniency, faculty may adjust course standards to protect their scores. That can erode consistency in academic expectations across departments. The debate is poised for policy action as institutions consider alternatives to student evaluations, including combined measures of teaching performance that reduce perverse incentives.