How Non-Judgmentalism Undermines Education

Non-judgmentalism has emerged as one of the core values of higher education. Today’s college students have been educated to perceive their sense of personal security with being affirmed and not judged. Many advocates of safe spaces claim that not being judged is one of the main virtues of their institution.

One website advertising “20 Great Value Colleges with Safe Spaces” gives pride of place to Colorado Mesa University’s Safe Space Program. It “emphasizes the importance of creating non-judgmental and non-biased space for students to have an open platform about any prejudicial concerns they may be experiencing.” In other words, one of the major things they want to feel safe from is judgment.

The fact that not being judged is now perceived as a positive virtue that enhances the learning experience of students is a problem for anyone who takes seriously the ethos of a liberal university education. The discrediting and loss of human judgment, which has been historically linked to the making of moral and political choices and intellectual development is now estranging the university from humanist values and critical reflection.

The Fear of True Tolerance

Although non-judgmentalism is represented as an enlightened and liberal attitude towards the world, it is nothing of the sort. The unreflected judgments arrived at through stereotyping are merely manifestations of conformism and prejudice. But the valuation of non-judgmentalism possesses no inherent positive ethical qualities. The reluctance to judge may be a symptom of disinterest or even moral cowardice. Nowadays it is often brought about by a reluctance to offend or to confront difficult and embarrassing questions. Consequently, once a student signals that she is “uncomfortable” with a particular line of discussion, a sensitive teacher is expected to change the subject.

Campus advocates of non-judgmentalism have developed an entire vocabulary of euphemisms to avoid being unambiguous, clear and blunt in its statements. Terms like “inappropriate,” problematic,” “unwelcome” or “uncomfortable” self-consciously avoid making a moral judgment.

From a liberal humanist perspective, judgment is not simply an acceptable response to other people’s beliefs and behavior: it is a public duty. It is the act of judgment that a dialogue is established between an individual and others. Drawing on Kant’s Critique of Judgment, the philosopher Hannah Arendt writes, in Between Past and Future, of an “enlarged way of thinking, which as judgment knows how to transcend its own individual limitations.” According to current conventional prejudice, the act of judging confines the imagination and encourages narrow-mindedness. In fact, as Arendt contends, judging plays a central role in disclosing to individuals the nature of their public world: “judging is one, if not the most,

According to current conventional prejudice, the act of judging confines the imagination and encourages narrow-mindedness. In fact, as Arendt contends, judging plays a central role in disclosing to individuals the nature of their public world: “judging is one, if not the most, important activity in which this sharing-the-world-with-others comes to pass.” Judgment does not simply mean the dismissal of another person’s belief: ‘the power of judgment rests on a potential agreement with others.” This is one compelling reason why a democratic public sphere depends on judgment.

Non-Judgmentalism Undermines Education

The capacity and the willingness to judge is central to the vocation of an academic Indeed academic judgment lies at the heart of the university. The testing of ideas, the questioning of colleagues’ views and the pursuit of intellectual clarity require the freedom to judge. The very idea of academic freedom is underpinned by the recognition that the exercise of judgment can have no limits without compromising scholarship and its vocation. Within the context of an academic relationship students and faculty must be prepared to have their ideas and views judged by others. Attempts to evade judgment or to limit its exercise in an academic environment can only compromise the quality of higher education.

Why has the creative public act of judgment become culturally devalued? To some extent the devaluation of the act of judgment is influenced by intellectual currents that are both skeptical of knowledge claims and argue that everyone’s views ought to be respected. Such relativist currents often denounce people with strong views as “essentialists” and “fundamentalists.” A more important source for the devaluation of judgment is the influence of the belief that people lack the resilience to deal with criticism. This belief is widely advocated by so-called parenting experts and teachers of children in their early years of schooling. School teachers are trained to avoid explicit criticism of their pupils and to practice techniques that validate members of the classroom.

Such sentiments are based on the premise that perceives people as lacking the capacity to engage with disappointment and criticism. The sentiment that “criticism is violence’” has gained significant influence on campuses and amongst the cultural elites. Judgment is often portrayed as a form of psychic violence, especially if applied to children: the sociologist Richard Sennett echoes this sentiment when he writes of the “devastating implications of rendering judgment on someone’s future.”

Far too many educators confuse an act of judgment with an assault on an individual’s well-being. Yet the exercise of judgment is not directed towards demeaning an individual’s identity but towards assessing an individual’s ideas. Its aims to transcend the personal. In contrast, the ethos of non-judgmentalism perceives the act of judgment as directed at an individual’s identity and assumes that everything is personal. Its self-centered failure to distinguish the personal from non-personal concerns bears all the hallmarks of cultural narcissism.

Paradoxically, the association of judgmentalism with intolerant narrow-mindedness is the very opposite of reality. It is the advocates of non-judgmentalism who regard those who question their views as violators of their safe space and who are wary of engaging with views other than their own. Since respecting and validating each other’s views is a foundational principle governing interaction in a safe space it becomes difficult to seriously question and criticize. And institutions that seek to protect their members from the offense caused by the exercise of judgment have lost sight of the meaning of higher education.


  • Frank Furedi

    Frank Furedi is an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent in Canterbury. His latest book, "How Fear Works; The Culture of Fear in The 21st Century," is published by Bloomsbury Press.

    View all posts

3 thoughts on “How Non-Judgmentalism Undermines Education

  1. My seven year old daughter has just changed school, to go from a liberal to more traditional setting. One of the things she has found better is that she now gets told frankly and openly how she’s doing on things and also knows her mark and that of others in tests. Children are not stupid they work much of this out for themselves anyway in any setting, but in her case she found it disconcerting when it was not openly discussed. A friend has said her daughter recalled the same thing when moving between the same schools. This, I should add, is not because either child is top of the class but they simply know where they stand on a particular piece of work and don’t take it personally. Having taught in higher ed. Institutions until recently, I can say this sense has been lost among most students due to years of education that has avoided judgement! This, as you identify, undermines education.

  2. I’m trying to reconcile how being non-judgemental works when grading student performance and providing feedback in academic setting.

    All all answers correct, thoughtful, informed? Certainly not.

    So why then are other positions immune to feedback that may not be positively reinforcing or merely neutral?

  3. If we, as humans, are to be anti-fragile, in the truest sense of the word….not simply resilient, but stronger, better, smarter, and more capable… then we absolutely must be exposed — over and over again — to judgment, to criticism, to whatever fires the world may bring.

    It is only through such constant & painful testing that we learn and grow. This is what drives us from infant (requiring protection from everything) to child (requiring protection from some things) to fully capable adult. How could it be otherwise?

    Judgment — the act of being judged, of submitting one’s self to the cold gaze and pointed criticism of the Other (harsh or arbitrary as it may be) is what strengthens us and allows us (forces us) to develop the capability to respond to that judgment…and to prove it right or wrong through our continual & increasingly effective response.

    The inverse is equally true. To refuse judgment…to run away…to shrink from conflict & confrontation (especially intellectual & ideological confrontation) is to become weaker, less able, less capable of dealing with life’s stressors when they appear. It is, in a very real sense, to shrink from Truth — for it is only through such dialogue, argument, and testing that Truth will out.

    For a University to encourage such cowardice…to provide ‘safe-spaces’ and swaddling blankets for the indisposed…is nothing short of intellectual suicide: an abject betrayal of everything for which the Academy stands.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *