This paper explores institutional leaders' perceptions of learning and teaching involved in facilitating and assessing Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) survey instruments across Australian regional universities. It focuses on how they understand the function of SET, strategies used to mitigate bias, and potential residual harm. Through adopting a combination of inductive and deductive research processes and a thematic analysis through the ethical lens of nonmaleficence (first, do no harm), we report that leaders in learning and teaching perceive SET as a form of surveillance and Quality Assurance 'performance', recognise inherent biases inhabited in SET reports, and identify how these biases negatively impact academics through a lack of systematic harm mitigation strategies. The paper's critical -- and novel -- contributions include an increased understanding of how SET inflicts harm towards women and other marginalised academic groups through systematic and authorised microaggressions and how SET contravenes universities' duty of care to employees. It recommends an expansion of the principle of nonmaleficence beyond potential harm to research subjects, including those who undertake research or evaluation (such as academics), particularly if these impact them.