A provocative post from Tom Pepinsky on Bluesky:

What the fuck is this guy talking about?
You get the sense that perhaps deBoer has never been to a college in this U.S. before, or that he doesn't really know what a college is
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/is-there-a-more-pathetic-figure-than

The article attached, from Freddie deBoer on Substack, present a scathing tirade against a particular type of professor:

They wear black jeans and Chuck Taylors to class, except maybe on the first day, when they stroll in wearing semi-ironic suits designed to contrast with their ample tattoos. Their syllabuses are printed in Helvetica. They mention Chappell Roan in the first fifteen minutes of the first day of class.

deBoer continues for another 3,000 words digging deeper through this same path of logic, which is a roller coaster of straw-men, misguided pedagogy, as well as some reasonable frustrations. I want to examine some of that here.

1. Student connection should not undermine authority

deBoer makes the claim from the outset that relating to students is the first blunder that a professor can make to appear Cool:

Many, many students groan internally on the first day when the instructor gets up and starts performing relatability and engaging in “I’m just like you” theatrics. They’re just too polite to say so.

The research has been clear on this for decades, student-teacher relationships are one of the foundational factors that influence students achievement. Relating to students in a way that is authentic to you does not immediately imply that you are somehow a worse teacher, quite the contrary. I would like to think that deBoer is not ignorant of this fact, but if that's the case then this particular point simply comes across as contrarian for its own sake.

2. Critical pedagogy is not "always and forever self-defeating"

deBoer in an overlong parenthetical aside:

[F]or the record, the fundamental dictate of critical pedagogy is always and forever self-defeating: if you inspire your students to rebel against your authority in your own classroom, they’re still following your lead and thus not rebelling at all.

Which I believe is a willful and malicious misrepresentation of the theory. deBoer has an intense fixation on this idea that Cool professors attempt to hide their authority, despite being bestowed it. The logic of critical pedagogy, which I am confident deBoer already understands, is to give students the tools to become critically conscious to fight oppression, not merely to thwart authority.

Authority and critical theory are not ideologically opposed, and certainly does not necessitate hiding your authority as a teacher, but rather embracing and accepting it.

Freire himself makes this clear:

I have never said that the educator is the same as the pupil. Quite the contrary [...]. The educator is different from the pupil. But this difference [...] must not be antagonistic. The difference becomes antagonistic when the authority of the educator, different from the freedom of the pupil, is transformed in authoritarianism.

Which again, is simply what good teaching looks like. So yes, you can have a critical classroom that is hierarchical. To be afraid that if students learn critical theory, they may rebel against your authority, should indicate to you that your teaching may reinforce oppression and antagonistic hegemony. To consider that a "defeat," completely misses the underpinnings of the theory. This may be a good opportunity for some professional self-reflection.

3. Learning is uncomfortable

There is a good deal of common ground I can find with deBoer, one of which is that learning is inherently uncomfortable.

But then, the job of a teacher is not to minimize discomfort; indeed, a good teacher will necessarily make their students uncomfortable, on occasion, as it’s often only in the space of genuine discomfort that we’re inspired to achieve our deepest growth.

Plato's aporetic dialogues appeared at the very infancy of pedagogical thinking, and for good reason: we learn best when we are actively challenged. Vygotsky's ZPD echoes this same notion, in a much more scientific manner, over two millennia thereafter. Students can best learn when presented with a task that is in a sweet-spot of uncomfortableness. To say that a teacher's job is not to minimize discomfort, though, is outright incorrect. A good teacher will ultimately differentiate the challenge given to their respective students to best develop their capacities in the most efficient way.

In the same way that video games have a difficulty curve throughout, educational programming does too. Some players may like to skip the tutorial, having already acquired the requisite skills, though others genuinely need it as a scaffold to success.

4. Feedback and high standards are critical

Perhaps the most spot-on idea that deBoer brings up that aligns with best practice is his stance on high standards and feedback. He says:

Students, meanwhile, are left to flounder. Most of them don’t know what they don’t know. (That’s why they’re in school!) And they’re trusting you, the instructor, to provide the structure, the feedback, the push. You don’t do that by affirming everything they say or handing out A’s like candy. You do it by guiding them through difficult material, correcting their mistakes, setting high standards, and being honest when they fall short.

Grade inflation does appear to be a significant issue in our current educational landscape, but I do not believe this is because of the Cool professors of the world, but rather a system tied with perverse incentives from the consumerization of education.

Guiding students through difficult material, correcting their mistakes, and having them rise to your expectations is paramount to the role of educator, but deBoer quickly undercuts this notion in the very next section.

5. A need for growth mindset

Even rarer, and even more important, is to sometimes say “I don’t think this will ever be something you’re very good at.” This shouldn’t ever be done with cruelty or malice. But real teaching does require honesty, and a willingness to risk being disliked.

This whole concept is misguided and untrue, and I pity the students that may have to hear that from you. It's not honesty. It's being a jerk. The high expectations that you set up are quickly dashed when you set the tone that some students will never be able to reach them.

A good teacher doesn't throw their hands in the air in a huff because their students aren't getting it, they just teach it to them. It is precisely what you are there for (For those that don't know, teacher is defined as a person who teaches^[1]). You cannot call yourself an educator if you say the same things five times to students and half the room doesn't get it:

Explaining the same concept for the fifth time because half the room still doesn’t get it, without pretending that the problem is with the concept and not the students.

Now, hear me out: maybe you should find a different way to teach the concept. Your job is not to force students to excel in a given field, your job is to adapt to students to teach them the material. It is here and only here, that students are "left to flounder," and directly opposes what deBoer stated that good teachers do just paragraphs prior.

A vibes-based litmus test

The piece itself comes across as bitter and monochrome. It becomes a vibes-based litmus test made to resoundingly declare a group of teachers that I don't like as wrong and ineffective. It's like deBoer received his end of semester student surveys, and seeing that students marked him lower than he thought just, wrote this verbose article to blow off steam at all the teacher's he perceives as Cool(TM), who likely got higher marks.

The big takeaway from his dismissive and condescending argument for this dubiously existent phenomena is that teachers should be rigid and cold beings, who simply deposit knowledge in student brains rather than actually teaching them. It spits in the face of evidence-based practice that has been mounting for decades.

Again, not all of what deBoer writes is incorrect, but the premise of this mythological, tattoo-laden, jeans-wearing professor, who hangs out with students in lieu of teaching, is entirely misguided.

Anyway, here are some of my favorite responses to the article on Bluesky:

That was an extended hallucination

— Kevin M. Kruse (@kevinmkruse.bsky.social) July 24, 2025 at 1:00 PM

Is the Cool Professor in the room with you right now?

— Rick Godden (@rickgodden.bsky.social) July 24, 2025 at 4:42 PM

Uh, Helvetica is the cool and rebellious font now?

— Christopher Shea (@lordshark.bsky.social) July 24, 2025 at 1:03 PM