According to Reuters, the University of Oklahoma stripped graduate teaching assistant Mel Curth of teaching duties in late December after Curth gave a student a score of zero out of 25 on a November essay assignment. The student, Samantha Fulnecky, cited the Bible and personal religious beliefs in her psychology paper, arguing the concept of more than two genders was “demonic” and that God made males and females differently for a purpose. The university stated it found the grading decision to be “arbitrary” and removed the zero from Fulnecky’s final grade following a complaint of religious discrimination. Curth, who identifies as transgender, had stated the essay failed to meet assignment criteria and relied on ideology over empirical material, calling parts of it “offensive.” The case gained attention after the campus Turning Point USA chapter published the materials and Fulnecky complained to Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt.
Free Speech Collision Course
Here’s the thing: this isn’t an isolated incident. It’s basically a perfect storm of hot-button issues hitting academia’s most sensitive pressure points. You’ve got religious expression, gender identity, academic standards, and free speech all crashing into each other in a single grading dispute. Both sides are waving the same flag—academic freedom—but they’re seeing two completely different battlefields. The university says it’s about teaching students “how to think, not what to think,” but that’s a lot easier said than done when deeply held beliefs are part of the submitted work.
The Rubric vs. Belief Problem
So, what’s the core conflict? It seems to boil down to a classic academic question: can you grade an essay based on its adherence to a rubric and empirical evidence when the student’s argument is fundamentally faith-based? Curth’s position was that the assignment required engagement with empirical material, which the essay allegedly didn’t do. Fulnecky’s position is that her worldview was penalized. The university, by removing the grade and the TA, tried to navigate a middle path but arguably pleased no one. It’s a messy situation that highlights how difficult it is to objectively assess subjective, values-driven arguments. I think most instructors have faced a version of this, just rarely with stakes this high and politics this charged.
Broader Legal and Cultural Echoes
This case echoes other campus clashes, and it’s almost certainly headed for a broader discussion about civil rights and institutional policy. When a complaint goes straight to a state governor, you know it’s transcended a simple grade appeal. The framing of “religious persecution” taps into a powerful narrative, and the involvement of groups like Turning Point USA ensures maximum visibility. It’s a scenario that tests the limits of what protections exist for both students and instructors. The university’s action—punishing the TA but also altering the grade—feels like an attempt to avoid a legal fight, but it might have guaranteed one anyway. These conflicts force institutions to examine where they draw lines, a process that’s never clean and always controversial.
Where Does This Leave Academia?
Look, the uncomfortable truth is there’s no clean answer. Campuses are supposed to be marketplaces of ideas, but they also have curricula and learning objectives. An essay calling an idea “demonic” is, frankly, inflammatory language in an academic context, but is it grounds for a zero if other criteria are met? Conversely, if assignments require evidence-based analysis, can personal theology fulfill that? This incident will probably lead to more rigid rubrics and tense classroom dynamics. It also underscores the immense pressure on graduate students, who are often frontline instructors in these debates. The whole situation is a stark reminder of how education intersects with fundamental human rights debates, and those collisions are only getting louder. For more on developing stories across the US, you can follow general US news.
