Freddie deBoer delivers a jarring counter-narrative to the prevailing cultural reflex: he argues that adults are not failing young people by being too strict, but by refusing to judge them at all. In an era where every instance of academic dishonesty is met with structural excuses, deBoer insists we have lost the moral courage to tell students they made a wrong choice. This piece cuts through the therapeutic fog of modern education to ask a question that has become taboo: what happens when we stop treating young people as victims and start treating them as agents?
The Fear of Looking Old
deBoer begins by dissecting the linguistic shift where "point of view" (POV) is used to simply mean "look at this," a usage he finds imprecise and unhelpful. He notes that while linguists often defend such changes as natural evolution, the real driver here isn't science—it's anxiety. "The impulse ultimately has a clear source: fear of looking old," deBoer writes. He observes that the collective defense of this imprecision is less about linguistic freedom and more about adults terrified of being labeled the stereotypical "old man yells at cloud." This framing resonates because it exposes the emotional undercurrents of what appears to be a dry debate about grammar.
The author draws a parallel to historical moments where language shifts were policed, noting that while we have moved past the era of strict grammarians, we haven't replaced them with clarity. Instead, "the mass meta-sanctimony of the anti-grammarian set on this issue has left the English language weaker than it was and called it progressive." deBoer argues that by refusing to correct usage, adults are actually engaging in a different kind of prescriptivism—one that demands everyone accept the new rules or be accused of being reactionary. Critics might note that language has always evolved through such imprecision, and that "correctness" is often a moving target defined by power rather than utility; however, deBoer's point remains sharp: when we stop valuing precision, we lose tools for clear thought.
The deeper context here is the fact that the people using 'POV' in a way almost tailor-made to obscure meaning and reduce comprehensibility are young, and the desire to avoid being the fogey criticizing young people has become a civilization-swallowing meme.
The Abandonment of Judgment in Education
The commentary then pivots from language to behavior, specifically the rise of students using large language models (LLMs) to cheat. deBoer identifies a disturbing trend in academia where educators refuse to hold students accountable for outsourcing their thinking. He describes a "particular sound a room full of educated adults makes when a young person does something wrong"—a collective throat-clearing that signals an imminent rationalization. The author argues that this is not compassion, but cowardice disguised as sophistication.
He challenges the notion that cheating is a form of resistance against a broken system. "Students are moral agents," deBoer asserts. "They make decisions. They know when they're cheating!" He dismantles the argument that structural inequities dissolve individual culpability, pointing out the hypocrisy in claiming the system is rigged while simultaneously expecting students to navigate it with perfect integrity without consequence. The author suggests that by refusing to judge, adults are actually doing a disservice: "we're telling them that their choices don't matter, that their integrity isn't worth defending." This is a powerful reframe of the current debate, shifting the focus from the technology itself to the moral vacuum it exposes in adult leadership.
Critics might argue that the pressure on students is unprecedented and that rigid adherence to traditional honor codes ignores the reality of burnout. Yet deBoer counters that this approach treats young people as fragile creatures who cannot handle the weight of their own decisions, a condescension that ultimately undermines their growth.
The Vanity of Exoneration
The most biting section of the piece targets the motivation behind this permissiveness. deBoer suggests that the relentless exoneration of students is less about helping them and more about adults protecting their own self-image. "They've done so not out of compassion but out of personal vanity," he writes. The fear of being perceived as a "Boomer in the worst sense" drives a generation of educators to overcorrect, flipping from strict authority figures to performative allies who blame themselves for every student failure.
He describes this dynamic as a status play where adults purchase the assurance that they are not old by sacrificing the principle of accountability. "The bill for this little performance is sent," deBoer concludes, implying that the cost is paid by the students themselves, who are denied the chance to develop moral fortitude. The author's insistence that "there is no such thing as schooling without judgment" serves as a stark reminder that assessment and ethical evaluation are inseparable from education.
If behavior was justified by how many other people were doing it, well, there would be no such thing as a coherent morality.
## Bottom Line Freddie deBoer's argument is a necessary corrective to the prevailing culture of excuse-making in higher education, successfully identifying the fear of aging as the root cause of adult permissiveness. While his dismissal of structural pressures on students may feel harsh to those witnessing genuine systemic failure, his core thesis—that we must respect young people enough to hold them accountable for their choices—is a compelling call for moral clarity. The piece's greatest strength lies in its refusal to let adults off the hook for abandoning their duty to judge.