A teaching assistant at the University of Oklahoma has been dismissed from instructional duties after awarding a failing grade to a student's psychology essay, an incident that ignited claims of religious discrimination and drew significant conservative backlash.
The Grading Dispute and Dismissal
The controversy centred on a 650-word assignment for a psychology course, where students were asked to react to an article about the impact of gender norms on middle school pupils' mental health. Samantha Fulnecky, a junior at the university, received zero points out of a possible 25 for her submission from teaching assistant Mel Curth.
Fulnecky asserted she was penalised "for my beliefs and using freedom of speech, and especially for my religious beliefs." Her essay repeatedly referenced the Bible, arguing that eliminating gender distinctions would pull society away from "God's original plan" and labelling the concept of multiple genders as "demonic."
Following an investigation, the university stated on Monday that the TA's grading of this specific paper was "arbitrary," based on an examination of prior grading standards and the assistant's own statements. The graduate teaching assistant will no longer have instructional duties at the University.
Investigation and Resolution
The university confirmed it had resolved two claims from Fulnecky: a grade appeal and a formal complaint of "illegal religious discrimination." The grade appeal was decided in the student's favour, with the assignment removed from her total class points, resulting in "no academic harm."
The discrimination claim was separately investigated and concluded, though the university does not release findings from such probes. The provost and the academic dean reviewed the full facts before the decision to remove the TA was made.
In its statement, the institution emphasised its commitment to both academic freedom for faculty and an education for students free from "impermissible evaluative standards." It added it is committed to "teaching students how to think, not what to think."
Online Fury and Divided Reaction
The case gained prominence after being promoted by the university's chapter of Turning Point USA, the conservative nonprofit. The group posted the essay and Curth's feedback online, criticising the educator, who uses she/they pronouns.
The online reaction was sharply divided. Some defended Fulnecky's right to express her religious views. Others, including another instructor for the course, Megan Waldron, concurred with the failing grade, arguing the essay failed to meet the assignment's requirements, digressed from instructions, and lacked citations.
Critics on social media described the paper as "absolutely embarrassing," noting it did not follow directions, failed to meet the word count, and cited no sources. In their feedback, Curth had stated Fulnecky was entitled to her beliefs but pointed out the assigned psychology article was based on years of research and evidence, "not just society 'pushing lies.'"
The university has stated it will continue to review practices to ensure instructors have the training needed to assess work objectively without limiting their ability to teach and inspire.
