The story below recounts how a University of Oklahoma teaching assistant graded a student’s Bible-based essay on gender with a zero, sparked an administrative probe, and was ultimately removed from teaching duties amid debate over academic fairness, free expression, and biological reality.
This incident began when 20-year-old OU junior Samantha Fulnecky submitted an assignment in a lifespan development psychology class that reflected her Christian worldview on gender. The student responded to a scholarly article and offered her opinion on gender binary and stereotypes, arguing from scripture and a traditional view of sex differences. The teaching assistant, identified as Mel Curth, graded the paper and found it wanting, calling the content offensive and not sufficiently grounded in empirical evidence. That grading decision set off a dispute that escalated to university administrators and public comment from state lawmakers.
Samantha described the assignment clearly: “I was asked to read an article and give my opinion on the article, and the article was about gender binary and mental health and gender stereotypes, specifically in children, because it’s a lifespan development class,” Fulnecky told Fox News Digital. “So I was asked to give my opinion and my reaction to the paper.” She followed instructions and offered a reaction rooted in her Christian beliefs rather than a purely secular framework.
“Does the paper show a clear tie-in to the assigned article?” is the first, worth up to 10 out of the assignment’s 25 total points.
“Does the paper present a thoughtful reaction or response to the article, rather than a summary?” is the second, also worth up to 10 points.
“Is the paper clearly written?” is the last criterion, worth up to five points.
The grading rubric allowed up to 25 points, allocated across connection to the article, thoughtful reaction rather than summary, and clarity of writing. Samantha says she followed those guidelines and presented an opinion that reflected her faith. Her essay included plainly stated beliefs about men and women and their roles, reasoning from the Bible about design and differences rather than from modern gender theory. For expressing that view she was given a zero and critical comments from the grader.
Curth left comments describing the paper as offensive and calling for more empathy, asserting Samantha had permitted her “personal ideology” to override empirical evidence. He pushed back with a broader claim about scientific consensus in professional organizations. His statement read, “You may personally disagree with this, but that doesn’t change the fact that every major psychological, medical, pediatric, and psychiatric association in the United States acknowledges that, biologically and psychologically, sex and gender is neither binary nor fixed.”
Fulnecky countered the grade with a direct appeal to Curth, then took the matter to university administration when the zero was not rescinded. The situation drew attention quickly because it raises two intersecting concerns: whether students can express religiously grounded opinions in coursework and whether graders are applying rubrics fairly and objectively. Those are not trivial questions for campuses that claim to protect free inquiry while also enforcing disciplinary standards.
Oklahoma University examined the case and concluded the teaching assistant had been arbitrary in grading that specific paper. The university removed Curth from instructional duties, citing his own statements as part of the review. The official finding pointed to an arbitrary grading judgment rather than an academic interpretation deserving of deference, and it ended his role in teaching at the school.
State Rep. Gabe Woolley, R-98th Dist., praised the university’s action and framed the hire as inappropriate from the start given the role involved human sciences and public teaching. He said, “This was the right decision. As I said from the beginning, this individual should never have been employed at a public university — particularly in a human sciences role — when he rejects the fundamental biological reality that there are two genders.” That remark reflects a common conservative concern about ideology in academic settings and the public responsibility of state-funded institutions.
Beyond this specific outcome, the episode spotlights wider friction on campuses between ideological commitments and the classroom’s role in evaluating student work. When graders and instructors bring strong personal commitments to contested social questions, students worry they may not get neutral, rubric-based assessments. For students like Fulnecky, who rely on academic evaluations for future career paths, the stakes are high and immediate.
Universities must balance protecting academic standards with defending open expression, including religious convictions expressed in academic work. The university action here signals that arbitrary grading tied to ideological conflict can cross a line and trigger administrative discipline. It also sends a message that students who present faith-based perspectives should expect their work to be judged fairly under the rubric, not silenced by subjective labels of offensiveness.
Cases like this will continue to test how higher education handles disagreements about identity, science, and belief. Faculty conduct, grading transparency, and institutional policies will be scrutinized as parties on all sides look to ensure classrooms remain places of robust debate rather than arenas where certain viewpoints are effectively barred from earning passing grades.
Add comment