Samantha Fulnecky’s Bible-citing gender essay: How it got a university instructor fired
The University of Oklahoma has removed a graduate teaching assistant from instructional duties after a student accused her of religious discrimination over a failing grade on a psychology assignment that cited the Bible and rejected the idea of multiple genders.In a statement posted on X on Monday, the public university said its internal investigation found that the instructor had been “arbitrary” in awarding zero points to the paper submitted by 20-year-old junior Samantha Fulnecky. The university added that the instructor “will no longer have instructional duties”. It declined to provide further details beyond the statement.
Instructor denies allegations, considers legal action
The instructor, Mel Curth, denied the allegation through her attorney. In a statement emailed to The Associated Press on Tuesday, attorney Brittany Stewart said Curth had not “engaged in any arbitrary behaviour regarding the student’s work” and was “considering all of her legal remedies”.
Case amplified by conservative groups and state officials
The case has drawn national attention after conservative groups and commentators amplified Fulnecky’s complaint online. Turning Point USA was among those that framed the incident as an example of students being penalised for expressing conservative Christian views. Oklahoma’s Republican governor, Kevin Stitt, also weighed in, calling the situation “deeply concerning,” AP reports.
The assignment and the disputed essay
The disputed grade related to an assignment in a psychology course on lifespan development. Students were asked to submit a 650-word response to an academic study examining whether conformity with gender norms affected popularity or bullying among middle school students.According to a copy of the essay shared with The Oklahoman, Fulnecky wrote that she rejected the premise of the assignment on religious grounds. She cited the Bible and argued that “the lie that there are multiple genders” was “demonic” and harmful to young people, adding that it moved society away from what she described as God’s original plan for humans.
Feedback focused on academic standards, not belief
Curth told the student that the paper did not answer the assignment’s questions, contradicted itself and relied on personal ideology rather than empirical evidence, according to a feedback obtained by The Oklahoman. The feedback also noted that parts of the essay were offensive. Curth added that she was not deducting marks because of the student’s beliefs.
University review and administrative response
Fulnecky appealed the grade. The assignment, worth3% of the final mark, was later excluded from her assessment, according to the university. Curth was placed on administrative leave before the decision to remove her teaching responsibilities.“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 university said in its statement. “We are committed to teaching students how to think, not what to think.”
Political and legal backdrop in Oklahoma
The decision comes against the backdrop of a broader political push by President Donald Trump to curb diversity, equity and inclusion programmes and limit how race, gender and sexuality are discussed on college campuses. Earlier this year, Oklahoma’s Republican-led legislature passed a law banning public universities from using state funds for diversity, equity and inclusion programmes or mandatory training. The law, signed by Stitt, explicitly states that it does not restrict scholarly research or the academic freedom of individual faculty members.
Faculty rights groups raise concerns
Advocates for faculty rights have criticised the university’s handling of the case. Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, said the decision undermined academic standards. “Faculty and instructors have the professional responsibility to evaluate student work according to established academic criteria, and this paper did not meet those requirements,” he said, The New York Times reports. He described the university’s action as part of wider efforts to politicise classroom instruction.
Legal uncertainty and unanswered questions
Curth did not respond directly to media requests. Her lawyer reiterated that she continues to deny grading the paper arbitrarily and is exploring options to appeal the decision.The episode has become a flashpoint in the debate over academic freedom, student speech and the boundaries between personal belief and academic assessment in public universities.
