A developing controversy at the University of Oklahoma has triggered widespread debate on academic freedom, grading autonomy, and protections for transgender instructors after a student filed a discrimination complaint following a failing grade on a gender-focused essay assignment.
The incident began in late November 2025, when psychology student Samantha Fulnecky submitted a 650-word essay referencing religious passages from the Bible. The assignment required students to critically respond to a designated article examining gender roles and stereotypes within modern society. Fulnecky’s essay argued that male and female roles reflected divine structure, rather than constructed social expectations. A public post from the student-led Turning Point USA chapter at OU amplified the dispute, asserting that personal beliefs were unjustly penalized.
Essay feedback issued by transgender graduate assistant Mel Curth assigned a score of zero, noting that the paper relied on personal ideology over psychological research and failed to address the academic criteria. Curth’s written remarks emphasized that the grade was based on academic standards, not religious viewpoint. Additional commentary from course instructor Morgan Miller echoed concerns that the essay included dismissive and inflammatory language toward fellow students’ identities and perspectives.
The university responded by placing Curth on administrative leave during a formal grade appeal and review process. OU confirmed receipt of Fulnecky’s discrimination report and stated that a full-time professor would lead the class for the remainder of the semester while the matter was evaluated. The school emphasized its obligation to ensure fair treatment for students, faculty, and staff, while safeguarding academic integrity and freedom of belief.
The grade challenge has drawn polarized reactions. Twitter discussions were rapidly divided, with student advocates accusing the institution of overreach and academic voices stressing the necessity of empirical writing in scientific coursework. Many within the transgender educator and ally community expressed alarm that a trans instructor was placed on leave for assignment-based grading, raising questions about whether transgender instructors are consistently supported when they evaluate work under controversial circumstances.
In higher education, instructors are tasked with assessing students based on evidence-based reasoning, critical analysis, and academic alignment. Advocates highlight that religious arguments, or critiques, can be presented respectfully and academically, but science classes are structured on peer-reviewed frameworks. Free speech extends to ideas, but academic evaluation extends to meeting criteria. When instructors lose autonomy to grade against ideological pressure or public outrage, student and instructor rights both suffer.
The implications of this case could reach beyond OU, potentially shaping future institutional guidelines on balancing freedom of belief, academic grading, and instructor protections. With transgender educators already facing disproportionate scrutiny, the transgender community is watching closely. The outcome of the investigation may signal how institutions support trans instructors when navigating ideological conflict.
Trans educators continue to uphold academic rigor amid escalating political and cultural tensions. This case is not just about one grade or appeal; it is a broader test of how campuses defend instructor authority, belief autonomy, and transgender inclusion without compromising educational standards.
