Replacing Standards with Sympathy

Higher education once stood for rigor, accountability, and personal responsibility. But grade inflation and diluted curricula have already eroded the pretense of academic excellence. Now, a new initiative at the University of Nebraska at Kearney (UNK), titled the “Ecological Validation Model for Student Success,” threatens to finish the job. Disguised as inclusion, the model abandons rigor, absolves certain students of responsibility, and replaces objective standards with politicized discretion. What’s unfolding at UNK is not an isolated case—it’s a warning sign of a deeper crisis spreading across American universities.

The new framework redirects institutional focus from academic excellence to emotional support. Billed as a “campus-wide approach to student success” in which “every staff and faculty member actively connects students to resources and networks,” the new framework redirects institutional focus from academic excellence to emotional support and to inconsistent expectations based on students’ socioeconomic status or identity group. Instead of reinforcing core principles such as content mastery, discipline, and merit-based achievement, the model promotes a subjective, shifting standard that erodes the value of a college degree. While supporting students is essential, genuine support must rest on high expectations and consistent standards, not selective exceptions that excuse underperformance.

Under the new model, faculty are encouraged to make case-by-case judgments for select student groups when grading their college work. “Ecological validation” is a hollow term that obscures more than it explains. In psychology, it refers to the real-world relevance of research, but, as education policy, it becomes a word salad of vague, feel-good rhetoric. The “Ecological Validation Model for Student Success” is described as “rooted in the belief that students come to college with assets, strengths, and capabilities.” The program aims to “nurture and develop those existing qualities,” with no acknowledgment of the need to build new ones essential to academic and professional success. This language signals a shift away from clear academic expectations toward an indulgent, affirmation-driven philosophy that confuses encouragement with achievement.

From Boutique Program to Broad Implementation

The Ecological Validation Model (EVM) is based on the Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC), a longstanding program at the University of Nebraska that supports a small number of low-income and first-generation students. Funded intensively by the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, the TSLC provides extensive academic support, including specialized general-education courses, dedicated advising, structured study groups, high expectations, and a strong peer network. The program has demonstrated success for its targeted participants, but it is limited in scope, competitive in admissions, and privately funded at a much higher per-student rate than the general student population enjoys. Crucially, faculty teaching Thompson Scholars students have never been instructed to lower standards or grant academic leniency.

Unlike TSLC, which emphasizes rigor and structure, the EVM applies a diluted version of its predecessor’s ethos to the entire student body without preserving its academic expectations or funding levels. Participation in the new initiative is mandatory across the campus. UNK’s attempt to scale a boutique program into a universal model introduces serious and troubling inconsistencies. Most notably, the new model promotes the negotiability of core academic requirements—deadlines, attendance, and grading—based primarily on whether a student is low-income, first-generation, or a racial minority. Academic favoritism and reduced expectations were never part of TSLC. Yet, under the new model, faculty are encouraged to make case-by-case judgments for select student groups when grading their college work, thus effectively replacing academic standards with subjective discretion. This shift erodes objectivity, transparency, and fairness, all of which are cornerstones of credible academic decisionmaking.

Consider these academic implications:

• Deadlines: Students are encouraged to request extensions based on personal situations, yet the model offers no clear criteria for what qualifies as an exception. Faculty are even urged to consider students’ cultural expectations regarding time management, effectively turning due dates into negotiable suggestions.
• Attendance: Under the new program, absences may be excused based on dubious individual circumstances, a policy that diametrically opposes the university’s student attendance policy. Instead, faculty are encouraged to consider students’ “assets, strengths, and capabilities” and, once again, their cultural expectations rather than apply consistent attendance policies, leading to uneven expectations.
• Grades: Students are permitted, and sometimes expected, to request reconsideration of grades based on personal circumstances rather than academic performance. This practice diminishes the role of achievement and introduces unacceptable subjectivity into grading.

What emerges is a telling pattern: First-generation and low-income students are being used as a Trojan horse. Their struggles are cited to sell the policy, but the changes that follow serve an ideological DEI agenda, not the students themselves—diluting standards for everyone while denying these students the rigor they deserve.

The changes serve an ideological DEI agenda, not low-income and first-generation students themselves. Politicized Grading and Legal Liability 

Within the EVM, these subjective policies are especially emphasized for students from low-income backgrounds, first-generation college students, and racial minorities. While supporting underserved students is a laudable goal, replacing universal academic standards with situational exceptions creates a disparity-based model that undermines fairness and coherence. In practice, it privileges emotional and social validation over demonstrable academic achievement, replacing objective benchmarks with individualized interpretations that erode the integrity of the learning process. Embedding socioeconomic and demographic considerations into academic policies politicizes student evaluation and undermines merit-based assessment.

The risks of subjective academic policies extend beyond fairness; they raise serious legal and ethical concerns. The risks of subjective academic policies extend beyond fairness; they raise serious legal and ethical concerns. Faculty are now expected to factor in students’ real or perceived economic circumstances and cultural expectations when making academic decisions. Yet implementing these practices risks reinforcing harmful racial and ethnic stereotypes while raising serious questions about privacy and role boundaries. All of this introduces inconsistent standards that can easily be considered arbitrary and capricious, placing both the instructor and the institution on shaky legal ground.

Lowered Standards and the Loss of Academic Freedom

The EVM places faculty in a fundamentally untenable position. Instructors must choose between upholding clear academic standards, thus risking accusations of inflexibility or discrimination (e.g., not being “student centered”), or conforming to vague expectations to avoid possible risk to their careers. The implicit message is unmistakable: Avoid holding institutionally favored students fully accountable or face potential administrative consequences. This creates a climate in which faculty are subtly incentivized to lower standards, not out of conviction but to preserve their positions. Over time, the result is the erosion of academic integrity and the devaluation of degrees awarded by UNK.

The model also threatens shared academic governance and faculty authority. If deadlines, attendance, and grading policies can be overridden based on individual student circumstances, what prevents administrators or academic support staff from imposing their own judgments on instructional matters? When framed in the language of equity and inclusion, this dynamic allows non-instructional staff or administrators to override faculty decisions, undermining academic freedom, professional boundaries, and shared governance.

Hurting More Than Helping Students

The implications for students are equally troubling. High-achieving students who fall outside of institutionally prioritized groups may find their efforts overlooked, their need for challenge unmet, and their struggles dismissed simply because they don’t fit a preferred narrative.

Equally troubling, the EVM may inflict the greatest harm on the very students it is designed to help. Lowering standards denies students the chance to confront challenges and develop resilience. Prioritizing accommodation over expectation implies that some students cannot meet high standards. When deadlines, attendance, and grading become negotiable, students learn to justify underperformance rather than overcome it. This mindset, once internalized, leaves them unprepared for the demands of work, advanced study, or civic life and robs them of the transformative value of a rigorous education.

To be clear, universities should offer robust support services—tutoring, counseling, and mentoring—to help all students succeed. But access to these resources, and faculty referrals to them, should not depend on a student’s demographic profile. Likewise, decisions that affect academic progress—extensions, grade reconsiderations, and attendance exceptions—must be guided by clear, objective standards, not by biased assumptions tied to race, identity, or socioeconomic status. Anything less erodes fairness, compromises academic integrity, and exposes both faculty and institutions to claims of discrimination.

By replacing clear expectations with situational exceptions, administrators deprive students of the opportunity to develop accountability. While the EVM may stem from good intentions, its implementation marks a troubling departure from the core mission of higher education. By replacing clear expectations with situational exceptions, administrators deprive students of the opportunity to develop accountability, resilience, time management, and content mastery—qualities essential for lifelong success. Lowering standards in the name of equity isn’t compassionate; it’s condescending. It signals that we don’t believe students can rise to meet academic challenges. True support means preparing students to overcome difficulty, not shielding them from it. If UNK is serious about student success, it must reject “the soft bigotry of low expectations” and reaffirm its commitment to clarity, consistency, and academic excellence. Equity is not achieved by reducing rigor but by helping all students rise to meet it.

Not Just a Local Problem

The erosion of academic expectations at UNK is not an isolated phenomenon; it reflects a broader trend across American higher education. Institutions across the country are replacing intellectual rigor and personal responsibility with emotional validation, identity-based accommodations, and vague notions of “belonging.” What distinguishes UNK is that it has codified this shift into official policy through the EVM. By giving this ideology institutional backing, UNK isn’t just following a trend; it’s formalizing the decline of academic rigor. Without resistance, this model may become a blueprint for other universities, accelerating a cultural transformation that leaves higher education unmoored from its core purpose.

Gregory A. Brown is professor of exercise science in the physical activity and wellness laboratory of the Department of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences at the University of Nebraska Kearney.