University of Oklahoma – Samantha Fulnecky

Summary

On November 25, 2025, University of Oklahoma psychology student Samantha Fulnecky submitted a reaction paper for a psychology course assignment on societal gender roles. The assignment asked students to respond to an article about how people are perceived based on societal expectations of gender. Fulnecky’s 650‑word essay drew heavily from the Bible, stating that men and women were created with distinct roles according to God’s plan and arguing that belief in more than two genders was “demonic” and harmful to American youth. She said her intention in using the word “demonic” was rooted in her belief that if Christians are not doing something that glorifies God, they are doing something that glorifies the enemy.

The graduate teaching assistant for the course, Mel Curth, gave the essay a zero out of 25 points, stating that it did not meet the assignment’s requirements, relied on personal ideology rather than evidence from the article, lacked engagement with the assigned material, and included language Curth considered highly offensive to transgender individuals. Curth wrote in the grading platform that “to call an entire group of people ‘demonic’ is highly offensive, especially a minoritized population.” A second instructor independently reviewed the essay and concurred that it did not meet the assignment’s requirements, further supporting the failing grade.

Following the grade, Fulnecky filed a formal complaint alleging religious discrimination, arguing that citing the Bible should have been acceptable and that the zero grade reflected bias against her faith. The university placed Curth on administrative leave while investigating the complaint and reviewing the grade through formal channels. University officials emphasized that the grade reflected academic standards, not religious beliefs, and affirmed a commitment to both faculty academic freedom and students’ right to an education free from impermissible evaluative standards.

The essay and ensuing controversy received widespread attention on social media, with posts about Fulnecky’s paper going viral. Fulnecky, a member of the University of Oklahoma chapter of Turning Point USA, had her story amplified by the chapter’s president. Student‑led protests followed, with hundreds of students rallying both in support of the graduate teaching assistant and for Fulnecky, illustrating broader debates over academic standards, free speech, and religious expression on campus. Elected officials, including state legislators and members of Congress, issued statements supporting Fulnecky and framing the situation as a potential violation of religious freedom. Other commentators noted that psychology assignments require engagement with evidence and scholarly sources, and that personal or religious beliefs alone do not meet assignment criteria.

Following a formal grade appeal, Fulnecky stated on December 3, 2025, that her failing marks on the essay would not count toward her final course grade. University officials confirmed that the review had been completed, noting that the essay and a related assignment would have counted for 3% of her final grade but were excluded following the appeal.

On December 22, 2025, the University of Oklahoma announced that Curth would no longer have instructional duties, stating that the instructor “was arbitrary in the grading of this specific paper.” On December 23, 2025, Curth issued a statement saying that she “continues to deny that she engaged in any arbitrary behavior regarding the student’s work” and that she is “considering all of her legal remedies, including appealing this decision by the University.”

The university said it had completed its investigation into Fulnecky’s discrimination complaint but did not release the findings, reiterating its commitment to teaching students how to think, not what to think, while upholding academic freedom.

As of late December 2025, Fulnecky’s complaint remained resolved with no academic harm to her, and the university continued to reaffirm its commitment to both faculty and students, stating that it “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” and emphasizing that “we are committed to teaching students how to think, not what to think.”