By Constitution Staff

A controversy concerning an essay by a student at the University of Oklahoma (OU) last November, drew national attention. Samantha Fulnecky, a 20-year-old junior at OU, was given a failing grade on an essay in a psychology class. Fulnecky then filed a complaint of religious discrimination which prompted an investigation by the university. The investigation found that the graduate teaching assistant’s prior grading standards and patterns, as well as statements by the instructor concerning the matter, were “arbitrary” in grading Fulnecky’s essay. “The graduate teaching assistant will no longer have instructional duties at the University,” according to a statement released by OU.

Students in the class were asked to write an essay responding to an assigned article, “Relations Among Gender Typicality, Peer Relations, and Mental Health During Early Adolescence” published in the psychology journal Social Development. The article claimed that gender-atypical kids experience teasing, leading to negative mental health outcomes. The transgender instructor, William “Mel” Curth who uses she/they pronouns, gave Fulnecky a zero (on a 0-25-point scale) for her essay. It was an online class and Fulnecky said she was unaware of Curth’s transgender identity. Fulnecky had received perfect scores on previous essays submitted in the class.

The guidelines for the assignment asked students to write a 650-word essay “reaction paper demonstrating that you read the assigned article, and provides thoughtful reaction to the material presented in the article.” Among the “possible approaches” suggested was to explain why a student thought the subject of the article was, or was not, worthy of study. “The best reaction papers illustrate that students have read the assigned materials and have engaged in critical thinking about some aspect of the article.” The grading criteria, based on a 25-point scale, was stated: “1. Does the paper show a clear tie-in to the assigned article? (10 points). 2. Does the paper present a thoughtful response or reaction to the article, rather than a summary? (10 points) 3. Is the paper clearly written? (5 points).”

In her essay, Fulnecky wrote, “This article was very thought provoking and caused me to thoroughly evaluate the idea of gender and the role it plays in our society. The article discussed peers using teasing as a way to enforce gender norms. I do not necessarily see this as a problem. God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose.”

Fulnecky also stated, “I strongly disagree with the idea from the article that encouraging acceptance of diverse gender expressions could improve students’ confidence. Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth. I do not want kids to be teased or bullied in school. However, pushing the lie that everyone has their own truth and everyone can do whatever they want and be whoever they want is not biblical whatsoever.”

Fulnecky also wrote, “It is frustrating to me when I read articles like this and discussion posts from my classmates of so many people trying to conform to the same mundane opinion, so they do not step on people’s toes. I think that is a cowardly and insincere way to live. It is important to use the freedom of speech we have been given in this country, and I personally believe that eliminating gender in our society would be detrimental, as it pulls us farther from God’s original plan for humans. It is perfectly normal for kids to follow gender `stereotypes’ because that is how God made us.”

Curth responded to Fulnecky’s essay, and explained the grade given, saying it “contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive.” Curth claimed that “this isn’t a vague narrative of `society pushes lies,’ but instead the result of countless years developing psychological and scientific evidence for these claims and directly interacting with the communities involved. You may personally disagree with this, but that doesn’t change the fact that every major psychological, medical, pediatric, and psychiatric association in the United States acknowledges that, biologically and psychologically, sex and gender is neither binary nor fixed.”

Several state officials spoke out on the controversy, including Gov. Kevin Stitt, then state Supt. of Public Instruction Ryan Walters, and several legislators. “The 1st Amendment is foundational to our freedom & inseparable from a well rounded education,” Stitt wrote in a post on X. “The situation at OU is deeply concerning. I’m calling on the OU regents to review the results of the investigation & ensure other students aren’t unfairly penalized for their beliefs.”

On December 3, Fulnecky related her story at a OCPAC Foundation (Original Constitutional Principles Affecting Culture) luncheon. “I was asked to give my opinion, and I gave my opinion,” Fulnecky said at the event which was covered by local and state media outlets.

A campus protest organized by the transgender community on December 5, had about 250 demonstrators marching in support of Curth. The rally included chants of “OU, shame on you,” and “protect our professors.” There were signs proclaiming, “Diversity makes us stronger.”

The controversy widened following the demonstration when Kelli Alvarez, an assistant teaching professor, was removed from teaching duties for the semester and placed on administrative leave. Alvarez allegedly excused absences for students attending the pro-Curth protest but declined to extend the same offer for a counter-demonstration. According to a statement posted by the OU chapter of Turning Point USA, Alvarez incentivized students to attend the protest in support of Curth, while imposing penalties on students who wanted to counterprotest in support of Fulnecky.

The Turning Point statement said that Alvarez “urged students to skip class to support a campus protest – promising excused absences for those attending.” But when Kalib Magana, a student in Alavarez’s class and the TPUSA OU president, asked to counter-protest, he “was denied the same option.” Magana filed a report with the University of Oklahoma’s Equity Office for “discrimination of a viewpoint” and freedom-of-speech violations. The Turning Point statement included an image of Alvarez wearing a “Protect Trans Kids” shirt.

Curth is exploring legal options over being permanently terminated by the university from his (she/they) teaching position.