The questions we use in our evaluations almost seem designed to produce such biases. We know that asking people to share vague, general impressions—versus providing them with well-defined criteria—produces skewed, stereotypical judgments. And yet we assess our teaching by asking students questions like, “Over all, how would you rate this faculty’s teaching?” or “How would you rate the overall quality of this course?” Such questions measure bias much more effectively than they measure teaching.

Some might be skeptical that student evaluations of teaching could make a difference in the representation of our faculty. But consider that women, underrepresented minorities and BIPOC faculty tend to be concentrated in the adjunct, teaching and lecturer tracks, where these evaluations are often the primary (or only) measure of their job performance. And what about the emotional costs of a system that seems to reward cisgender white men just for acting the part? How many potential underrepresented faculty are turned off by such clearly biased evaluation mechanisms?

There is no need to completely abolish these evaluations, as some people have proposed. Student evaluations of teaching can tell administrators about behaviors that need to be stopped or improved—especially when they form a clear pattern in one’s teaching repertoire—and they can provide instructors with insights that can be used to improve their teaching. But we can no longer afford to keep using the same flawed instruments year after year, while simultaneously proclaiming our institutions’ commitment to inclusivity, equity and diversity.