- A university fired a transgender teaching assistant for arbitrarily failing a student's essay.
- The student's essay argued a biblical perspective that gender is biologically fixed.
- The university found the grading was arbitrary and based on the instructor's personal bias.
- The case sparked national debate over religious liberty and academic freedom on campuses.
- The university stated a commitment to free inquiry over ideological grading.
The University of Oklahoma announced this week that it fired a transgender teaching assistant after an investigation found the instructor arbitrarily failed a student’s essay that presented a biblical perspective on gender. The case, which drew national attention and praise from conservative figures, forces a hard look at whether universities are upholding their commitment to open inquiry or allowing personal biases to dictate academic outcomes.
The controversy began in late November in a psychology course. Students were assigned to write a 650-word response to a scholarly article about gender norms in early adolescence. Samantha Fulnecky, a 20-year-old junior, submitted an essay arguing that gender is biologically fixed and rooted in Christian belief. She wrote that society’s push toward multiple genders is “demonic” and asserted that “there would be less gender issues and insecurities in children if they were raised knowing that they do not belong to themselves, but they belong to the Lord.”
An “arbitrary” grade
Graduate teaching assistant Mel Curth, who uses “she/they” pronouns, gave Fulnecky’s paper a zero. In feedback, Curth stated the essay relied too heavily on “personal ideology” over empirical evidence and called parts of it “highly offensive.” Curth specifically objected to the term “demonic,” writing, “To call an entire group of people ‘demonic’ is highly offensive, especially a minoritized population.”
The grade sparked immediate outcry. Fulnecky filed a religious discrimination complaint, and the essay quickly circulated online, drawing support from conservative activists and lawmakers. The university placed Curth on administrative leave and launched a review.
University takes action
On Monday, the university released a statement saying its provost had personally reviewed the case. It concluded that Curth’s grading was “arbitrary” based on the instructor’s “own statements” and prior grading patterns. The school removed Curth from all instructional duties, assigned a full-time professor to the course, and ensured Fulnecky’s failed grade would not affect her final standing. A formal grade appeal process was also conducted.
“The University of Oklahoma believes strongly in both its faculty’s rights to teach with academic freedom and integrity and its students’ right to receive an education that is free from a lecturer’s impermissible evaluative standards,” the statement read. “We are committed to teaching students how to think, not what to think.”
The decision was celebrated by conservative leaders. Oklahoma state Representative Gabe Woolley called Curth’s removal appropriate, stating the instructor “should never have been employed at a public university” while rejecting biological sex differences. Former state schools superintendent Ryan Walters described Fulnecky as “an American hero” for confronting what he called a broader attack on Christianity.
This incident is not isolated. It echoes growing tensions on campuses nationwide where debates over gender ideology, religious liberty, and free speech frequently collide. The University of Oklahoma’s response suggests an institution attempting to navigate a line between protecting academic freedom and preventing ideological discrimination.
A question of fairness
At its core, the case raises a persistent question: should students be penalized for expressing religious viewpoints in academic assignments? The university’s rubric for the assignment did not require empirical evidence, asking instead for a “thoughtful discussion.” Fulnecky’s essay, while grounded in faith, engaged the topic directly. Critics argue that dismissing her perspective as “offensive” represents a form of compelled speech, where only approved viewpoints are tolerated.
Historical context reminds us that universities have long been arenas for challenging debates. The concept of academic freedom was designed to protect controversial ideas, not suppress them. When instructors allow personal convictions to dictate grades, they risk undermining the very mission of higher education.
The University of Oklahoma’s decisive action sends a clear message that arbitrary grading based on a student’s beliefs will not be tolerated. But it also leaves unresolved the deeper cultural divide over how gender and faith are discussed in academia. As students return to classrooms, the challenge remains to foster environments where rigorous thinking is encouraged, and diverse perspectives are evaluated fairly... not on their alignment with an instructor’s worldview, but on their merit within the bounds of the assignment. In an era of intense polarization, that balance is more critical than ever.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.