Milton W. Wendland (JD, PhD) is a professor of instruction in the Department of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of South Florida, where he specializes in equitable and inclusive online education. 

In the wake of COVID-19, a pedagogy of care has emerged as a central organizing framework in conversations about teaching and learning in higher education, appearing in practice as flexible deadlines, expanded attendance leniency, and a host of other classroom practices. Much of this development reflects necessary corrective work. Students do not enter academic spaces as abstract or neutral learners; they arrive shaped by structural inequality, economic precarity, chronic stress, and uneven access to institutional resources. A pedagogy that ignores these realities does not safeguard rigor; rather, it risks perpetuating harm under the guise of neutrality. 

At the same time, a pedagogy of care is not an unqualified good. When left conceptually unexamined, it can become unsustainable for faculty and counterproductive for students. As the language of care has expanded, so too have expectations surrounding what a pedagogy of care requires, at times collapsing the distinction between pedagogical responsibility and unbounded “student support.” For example, faculty may feel pressure to respond to emails at all hours, negotiate every deadline individually, or serve as primary responders to crises well beyond their professional training. What begins as responsiveness can gradually solidify into an expectation of limitless availability. 

When a pedagogy of care is equated with constant accessibility, unbounded emotional labor, and unlimited flexibility in the name of student support, significant consequences follow. Scholars have noted that neoliberal appropriations of academic “care” frequently invoke expansive commitments to well-being and humanity without corresponding structural investment.ⁱ In these contexts, the pedagogy of care becomes individualized and privatized, disproportionately borne by those with the least institutional security—often women, faculty of color, and contingent instructors.ⁱⁱ Care is then enacted unevenly and haphazardly, both in course design and in the differential treatment of individual students. Rather than redistributing responsibility, such formulations risk reinscribing inequities through intensified and unevenly allocated labor. 

Burnout intensifies. Professional boundaries erode. Institutional power relations are obscured rather than addressed. Students may also lose opportunities to develop essential academic and professional capacities such as time management, self-advocacy within defined structures, and accountability to shared standards. For instance, a course that allows indefinite extensions without clear limits may reduce short-term stress but undermine students’ ability to plan, prioritize, and meet external deadlines—skills crucial beyond the university. Under such conditions, the core purposes of teaching and learning can become difficult to define within a pedagogy of care framework. 

What is required, therefore, is a reframing of the pedagogy of care as institutional and pedagogical design. A sustainable pedagogy of care emphasizes the construction of learning environments that are transparent and equitable by design. Concretely, this may involve building limited “grace tokens” into the syllabus rather than negotiating extensions case by case; dropping the lowest quiz score to account for inevitable disruptions; articulating response-time policies for email; and clearly defining the scope of faculty roles in relation to counseling or crisis intervention.  This approach prioritizes clarity of expectations, distributive fairness, and structural supports that safeguard the dignity and well-being of both students and faculty. 

Care Needs Boundaries to Be Ethical 

One of the most responsible practices within a pedagogy of care is the explicit articulation of professional boundaries at the outset of a course. Expectations regarding office hours, email response times, and the scope and limits of the instructional role should be clearly defined rather than implied. For example, a syllabus might specify that emails will be answered within 24–48 hours on weekdays, that assignment extensions are managed through a structured token system, and that mental health crises will be referred to campus counseling services. 

Such parameters provide structural clarity and reduce ambiguity in the pedagogical relationship. In the absence of clearly communicated boundaries, students may reasonably interpret care as synonymous with constant availability or individualized intervention. This misalignment can generate frustration while placing disproportionate emotional demands on instructors, particularly those already positioned to perform heightened affective labor. Formalized boundaries, far from undermining care, make it consistent and sustainable. 

Similarly, a sustainable pedagogy of care reframes support as structured academic coaching rather than individualized rescue missions. This might include explicitly teaching students how to read a rubric, modeling effective study schedules, or walking through how to email a supervisor professionally. The aim is not dependence but capacity-building. Care entails working alongside students, facilitating growth without assuming ownership of their paths.  

An important aspect of structured coaching is knowing when to refer. Faculty are often among the first individuals students approach in moments of crisis. While empathetic listening is essential, independently managing mental health emergencies, housing insecurity, or legal concerns exceeds the instructional role and creates personal, ethical, and even legal risks for both students and instructors. Including a clearly visible list of campus resources in the syllabus and normalizing referral language (“This is important, and I want to connect you with someone trained to help”) reinforces that care is collective and institutional. Referral is not abandonment; it protects both students and faculty. 

Design Care into the Course—Don’t Grant It by Exception 

A pedagogy of care becomes unsustainable when it operates primarily through individualized exceptions. When flexibility depends on personal appeals or disclosure of hardship, inequities emerge. Students comfortable with self-advocacy—or with revealing personal circumstances—benefit disproportionately, while others remain silent.ⁱⁱⁱ Additionally, assignments that reward vulnerability, participation norms privileging emotional self-revelation, or extension practices requiring personal justification risk crossing ethical boundaries.^iv In this way, exception-based accommodation can inadvertently reward visibility rather than need. 

A design-based approach offers an alternative. Flexible but bounded deadlines, structured grace periods, transparent grading criteria, scaffolded assignments, and multiple assessment formats enable students to navigate disruptions without requiring personal disclosure. Flexible policies—like limited “grace days,” automatic short extensions, or optional assignment drops—allow students to manage disruptions without explaining personal circumstances. Participation criteria can be diversified to include written discussion posts, small-group contributions, or analytical responses, ensuring that assessment values intellectual engagement rather than emotional exposure. Clear rubrics reinforce these standards by positioning skill and reasoning as the drivers of the grade rather than the extent of personal narrative. These practices align with Universal Design for Learning principles, which emphasize access without compulsory revelation of personal hardship.^v Embedding flexibility into course architecture ensures that care is equitable rather than discretionary. 

When courses are designed in this way, a pedagogy of care protects student privacy, maintains ethical boundaries, and ensures that academic evaluation reflects demonstrated learning rather than the revelation of personal hardship. 

Care and Rigor Are Not Opposites 

A common misconception holds that care and rigor are in tension. In practice, they are mutually reinforcing. Ambiguous or inconsistently applied standards tend to generate greater learner anxiety than do the intellectual challenges of the course material. By contrast, high expectations that are clearly articulated and consistently applied can coexist with deep care. For example, providing a detailed rubric, sample assignments, and opportunities for assignment feedback maintains rigor while offering meaningful support. 

When students understand why standards exist—how assignments connect to disciplinary norms or professional skills—they are more likely to experience rigor as investment in their own development rather than as punishment.^vi Lowering expectations in the name of compassion may inadvertently signal diminished confidence in students’ capacities. A robust pedagogy of care challenges students while equipping them to meet those challenges. 

Burnout Is a Structural Problem, Not a Personal Failure 

Instructors—particularly women, faculty of color, and contingent faculty—are frequently expected to compensate for institutional inadequacies under the banner of care.^vii Without structural support, such expectations produce burnout and compassion fatigue. Care that depends on chronic overextension is extractive rather than ethical. 

Sustainable pedagogical care requires limits and collective advocacy. Practical measures include documenting advising and mentoring labor in annual reviews, advocating for equitable service distribution, developing clear referral pathways, and resisting norms of constant digital availability. Care must be institutionally supported, not privately absorbed.^viii 

Care Is Never Neutral 

Pedagogies of care are shaped by power. Faculty hold grading authority and institutional legitimacy, and varying degrees of job security. Social locations, including race, gender, class, and cultural norms, influence whose care is expected, whose needs are recognized, and whose boundaries are respected. Reflective pedagogical care requires sustained self-examination: Whose communications receive the most immediate attention? Which student struggles are interpreted as credible? Who feels entitled to request assistance and who does not? Reflective practice may involve auditing response patterns, tracking participation to ensure equity, or inviting anonymous midsemester feedback about classroom climate. Such reflection does not eliminate inequality, but it renders care more intentional and just. 

Care as Structure, Not Sacrifice 

At its most effective, a pedagogy of care is not emotional heroism or limitless empathy. It is the deliberate design of courses, policies, and relationships that uphold learning, dignity, and well-being without demanding self-erasure from students or faculty. When care is grounded in clearly articulated boundaries, equitable structures, and ongoing critical reflection, it avoids becoming toxic or extractive, moves beyond unsustainable self-sacrifice, and becomes a genuinely transformative educational practice. 

---

ⁱ Wilkinson, E. (2025). Feminist pedagogy in the neoliberal university: On violence, vulnerability and radical care. Gender and Education, 37(4), 474–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2025.2471286 

ⁱⁱ Guarino, C. M., & Borden, V. M. H. (2017). Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family?, Research in Higher Education, 58(6), 672–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2  

ⁱⁱⁱ Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.3.n0016675661t3n15 

^iv Brantmeier, E. J. (2013). Pedagogy of vulnerability: Definitions, assumptions, and applications. In J. Lin, R. L. Oxford, & E. J. Brantmeier (eds.), Re-envisioning higher education : Embodied pathways to wisdom and social transformation (pp. 95–106). Information Age Publishing, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-62396-399-620251009 

^v CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. CAST Professional Publishing. https://udlguidelines.cast.org 

^vi Nilson, L. B., & Zakrajsek, T. D. (2023). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass. 

^vii Berheide, C. W., Carpenter, M. A., & Cotter, D. A. (2022). Teaching college in the time of COVID-19: Gender and race differences in faculty emotional labor. Sex Roles, 86, 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-021-01271-0 

^viii Posselt, J. R. (2020). Inside graduate admissions: Merit, diversity, and faculty gatekeeping. Harvard University Press. 

MEET THE AUTHOR