The University of Oklahoma has removed a transgender graduate teaching assistant from instructional duties following a highly publicized grading dispute, even as another instructor who concurred with the failing assessment has remained in her role.
The controversy began when Samantha Fulnecky, a student in an introductory sociology course, received a zero on an essay assignment focused on academic analysis of gender and sex. Fulnecky’s submission rejected the premise of transgender identities and did not engage with the peer-reviewed research required by the assignment.
In interviews following the dispute, Fulnecky stated she completed the essay in approximately 30 minutes, a claim that became central to the university’s internal review. Fulnecky did not indicate that she reviewed or cited the assigned academic sources, which course instructors later said was a core requirement of the assignment.
Despite this, Fulnecky’s complaint quickly gained traction in conservative media and advocacy circles, including amplification by Turning Point USA. Conservative commentators framed the dispute as an example of ideological bias in higher education.
Former Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters publicly praised Fulnecky during the early stages of the controversy, referring to her as an “American hero.” Walters has since resigned from office and no longer holds a position within Oklahoma’s public education system, but his comments helped elevate the case to national attention.
Following an internal review, the University of Oklahoma nullified the disputed grade and confirmed Fulnecky would not face academic penalty. However, the university also removed Mel Curth, the graduate TA who issued the original grade, from instructional duties, citing concerns that the grading decision was “arbitrary.”
University records and reporting show that another instructor involved in the course independently reviewed Fulnecky’s essay and concurred with the failing assessment, concluding that the submission did not meet the assignment’s academic criteria. That instructor, who is not transgender, has not been removed from teaching responsibilities.
The unequal outcome has raised concerns among LGBTQ+ advocates and higher-education observers, who note that Curth was the only instructor to face employment consequences despite shared responsibility for evaluating the assignment. While the university has not cited Curth’s gender identity as a factor, critics argue the decision reflects broader patterns of vulnerability faced by transgender educators in politicized workplace environments.
Curth, through legal counsel, has indicated she is exploring appeal options and potential legal action related to employment discrimination and due process.
The case continues to draw national attention as debates over transgender inclusion increasingly intersect with academic freedom and employment protections. Advocates warn that the public celebration of Fulnecky, combined with disciplinary action against a transgender educator, may have a chilling effect on instructors tasked with enforcing academic standards in politically charged subjects.
