In a decision announced on December 22, 2025, the University of Oklahoma (OU) stated that a graduate teaching assistant would no longer have instructional duties at the institution. This followed an investigation into a grading dispute involving a student's psychology essay that incorporated religious arguments against the concept of multiple genders.
The controversy began in late November 2025 when Samantha Fulnecky, a 20-year-old junior psychology major at OU, submitted a 650-word reflective essay for an online psychology course. The assignment required students to respond to an academic article titled "Relations Among Gender Typicality, Peer Relations, and Mental Health During Early Adolescence," which examined associations between conformity to gender norms and experiences of popularity or bullying among middle school students.
In her essay, Fulnecky argued from a Christian perspective that traditional gender roles align with biblical teachings and should not be viewed as stereotypes. She wrote that society promoting the idea of multiple genders is "demonic and severely harms American youth," and emphasized that children should be raised understanding they "belong to the Lord." Fulnecky did not formally cite the Bible but grounded her arguments in faith-based assertions rather than empirical evidence from the assigned article or psychological research.
The essay was graded by graduate teaching assistant Mel Curth, who identifies as transgender and uses she/they pronouns. Curth awarded Fulnecky a score of 0 out of 25, providing detailed feedback explaining that the paper "does not answer the questions for this assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive." Curth specifically noted that calling an entire group of people "demonic" was "highly offensive, especially a minoritized population," but clarified that points were not deducted due to the student's beliefs. Instead, the grade reflected failure to engage with the prompt using academic standards, such as empirical sources.
A second instructor for the course, Megan Waldron, reviewed the essay and concurred with Curth's assessment, stating that it "should not be considered as a completion of the assignment" and urging the use of empirical evidence.
Fulnecky filed a formal complaint with OU, alleging religious discrimination. The essay and grading feedback were publicized on social media by the OU chapter of Turning Point USA, a conservative student organization, leading to widespread attention and backlash. The post garnered millions of views, framing the incident as an attack on Christian students' free expression.
On November 30, 2025, OU placed Curth on administrative leave pending investigation and initiated a grade appeal process. The university stated it takes concerns involving First Amendment rights, including religious freedoms, seriously. The grade appeal resulted in the assignment being removed from Fulnecky's course calculation, ensuring no academic harm.
Following further review, including examination of the teaching assistant's prior grading patterns and statements, OU announced on December 22, 2025: "it was determined that the graduate teaching assistant was arbitrary in the grading of this specific paper. The graduate teaching assistant will no longer have instructional duties at the university." The university emphasized its commitment to both faculty academic freedom and students' rights to fair evaluation.
Curth, through her attorney Brittany M. Stewart, denied engaging in arbitrary grading and indicated she is considering legal remedies, including an appeal of the decision.
The incident drew political commentary. Former Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters, who resigned in September 2025 to lead a national anti-teachers' union organization, had previously called Fulnecky an "American hero" amid the initial backlash. Oklahoma State Representative Gabe Woolley presented Fulnecky with a citation of recognition and stated the decision was appropriate, arguing against employing individuals who, in his view, reject biological realities in educational roles.
The case has sparked broader debates on academic freedom, religious expression in coursework, grading standards in scientific disciplines, and viewpoint diversity on campuses. Some sources highlighted concerns over potential chilling effects on instructors grading controversial submissions, while others praised OU for addressing perceived inconsistencies in grading.
This event occurs amid heightened national scrutiny of gender-related topics in higher education, including similar disputes at institutions like Texas A&M University.
