She turned in a Bible sermon instead of an essay and failed. Now conservatives say she’s the victim.
Samantha Fulnecky’s Bible-filled essay earned her a failing grade. After whining to Republican leaders, the University of Oklahoma is caving to her demands.
This newsletter is free and goes out to over 23,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can use the button below to subscribe or use my usual Patreon page!
Samantha Fulnecky, a conservative student at the University of Oklahoma, insists that she’s a victim of religious discrimination after receiving a failing grade on a homework assignment for which she didn’t produce anything of value but referenced the Bible a whole bunch of times.
And now the educator on the other end of this false claim has been placed on administrative leave.
The assignment was for a psychology course and required students to read and respond to a decade-old article on “Gender Typicality, Peer Relations, and Mental Health.” The paper in question basically showed that students who are gender typical tend to be perceived as more popular, and that boys who are gender atypical suffer worse mental health outcomes.
Students were asked to respond to that paper in a essay. They could talk about whether the issue was worth studying, how they connected (or didn’t!) to the research, how the study related to other areas of interest, alternative interpretations of what the researchers found, etc.
Basically, the teachers didn’t care what you said. They just wanted students to seriously grapple with the paper in question. Read it. Think about it. React to it. Show us that you have the ability to wrestle with these ideas. The rubric literally said “The best reaction papers illustrate that students have read the assigned materials and engaged in critical thinking about some aspect of the article.”
That’s pretty straightforward! Points would be given based on whether the response essay showed a “clear tie-in to the assigned article” (10 points), offered a thoughtful response (10 points), and was clearly written (5 points).
Fulnecky didn’t connect her essay to the article. She didn’t react to anything it actually said. And the best thing that can be said about her writing is that it might get high marks in an elementary school.
That’s why she received a score of 0. (Which, to be honest, is being generous.)
Let’s go through her entire essay—you better believe the whole thing was posted online—paragraph-by-paragraph.
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. God is very intentional with what He makes, and I believe trying to change that would only do more harm. Gender roles and tendencies should not be considered “stereotypes”. Women naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts. The same goes for men. God created men in the image of His courage and strength, and He created women in the image of His beauty. He intentionally created women differently than men and we should live our lives with that in mind.
She doesn’t directly mention the article. She doesn’t quote from it. There’s no indication she read any of it beyond the introduction—or even the title. She jumps right into what the Bible says, as if she’s delivering a sermon. What’s weird is that even bad Christian writers cite Bible verses, but she doesn’t even bother with that. The problem isn’t merely that she’s proselytizing in an essay; it’s that she’s giving a generic anti-trans response when the assignment asked her to respond to something very specific. She claims the article caused her to “thoroughly evaluate the idea of gender and the role it plays in our society” but the essay never actually shows us any proof of that. It’s almost shocking the first sentence didn’t begin with “Webster’s defines ‘gender’ as…”
You will also never read a sentence as circular and thoughtless as “Women naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts.”
That was just the beginning. Maybe, you think, she gets more detailed in the rest of the paper? Not a chance.
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. The reason so many girls want to feel womanly and care for others in a motherly way is not because they feel pressured to fit into social norms. It is because God created and chose them to reflect His beauty and His compassion in that way. In Genesis, God says that it is not good for man to be alone, so He created a helper for man (which is a woman). Many people assume the word “helper” in this context to be condescending and offensive to women. However, the original word in Hebrew is “ezer kenegdo” and that directly translates to “helper equal to”. Additionally, God describes Himself in the Bible using “ezer kenegdo”, or “helper”, and He describes His Holy Spirit as our Helper as well. This shows the importance God places on the role of the helper (women’s roles). God does not view women as less significant than men. He created us with such intentionally and care and He made women in his image of being a helper, and in the image of His beauty. If leaning into that role means I am “following gender stereotypes” then I am happy to be following a stereotype that aligns with the gifts and abilities God gave me as a woman.
You know, she came so close to offering some real substance right in that first sentence when she referenced the article and discussion posts from her classmate… but then she didn’t bother elaborating on anything they said. She just went back to the sermon, going on a tangent about gender roles… which has absolutely nothing to do with the paper she was supposed to read. Maybe if this was a reaction to a paper about “trad wives,” she’d be getting somewhere, but it’s not. No one cares what she thinks about the role of women because that’s not the assignment.
Also, if you’re going to argue that woman are predisposed to “feel womanly” and care for others “in a motherly way,” you should at least explain why plenty of women (including many Christian ones) disagree.
And why it is “mundane” to have the opinion that trans people are also worthy of basic respect?
I do not think men and women are pressured to be more masculine or feminine. 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. The Bible says that our lives are not our own but that our lives and bodies belong to the Lord for His glory. I live my life based on this truth and firmly believe that there would be less gender issues and insecurities in children if they were raised knowing that they do not belong to themselves, but they belong to the Lord.
This is the closest she comes to doing the assignment, where she writes that she disagrees with the idea that “encouraging acceptance of diverse gender expressions could improve students’ confidence.” But instead of backing that up with any evidence, or explaining what the researchers got wrong, she just proclaims that tolerance of trans people is “demonic.”
You also have to appreciate the blunt Christian cruelty in the part that goes, “I do not want kids to be teased or bullied in school. However…“
She concludes by returning to her sermon:
Overall, reading articles such as this one encourage me to one day raise my children knowing that they have a Heavenly Father who loves them and cherishes them deeply and that having their identity firmly rooted in who He is will give them the satisfaction and acceptance that the world can never provide for them. My prayer for the world and specifically for American society and youth is that they would not believe the lies being spread from Satan that make them believe they are better off as another gender than what God made them. I pray that they feel God’s love and acceptance as who He originally created them to be.
Once again, no one cares and no one asked and Fulnecky didn’t show any proof that she understood the idea of the paper, much less grappled with anything it actually said.
No wonder she failed. This paper is so bad, Liberty University would have given her the same score.
When she raised her concerns with the instructors, they were far more generous with their explanation than they needed to be, trying to tell Fulnecky that she didn’t do the required work. (And she eventually shared these screenshots from their discussion, which I’m sure she thought would help prove her case. I’ve stitched them together in the image below.)
The first instructor made it very clear that she wasn’t punished for her anti-trans opinions but because she didn’t do the assignment—and went even further than that:
Please note that I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs, but instead I am deducting point for you posting a reaction paper that does not answer the questions for this assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive.
The instructor went on to say that Fulnecky had every right to counter what the article said but that means citing your sources and explaining why “countless articles across psychology, biology, sociology” are all seemingly wrong despite them coming to similar conclusions about the connection between gender identity and mental health.
Then the instructor did what Fulnecky was incapable of: She pointed out how Fulnecky contradicted herself by directly responding to what she wrote.
You argue that abiding by normative gender roles is beneficial (it is perfectly fine to believe this), but to then say that everyone should act the same, while also saying that people aren’t pressured into gendered expectations is contradictory, especially since your arguments reflect a religious pressure to act in gender-stereotypical ways. You can say that strict gender norms don’t create gender stereotypes, but that isn’t true by definition of what a stereotype is. Please note that acknowledging gender stereotypes does not immediately denote a negative connotation, a nuance this article discusses.
The instructor noted that calling people “demonic” is “highly offensive” (true!) and that what Fulnecky was implying as truth contradicted “countless years” of research in the other direction.
After pleading with Fulnecky to have “more perspective and empathy,” the instructor concluded:
If you personally disagree with the findings, then by all means share your criticisms, but make sure to do so in a way that is appropriate and using the methodology of empirical psychology, as aligned with the learning goals in this class.
All of that is what you hope to hear from an instructor who actually takes the time to look at your work. They’re not afraid to tell you what you got wrong, in detail, while keeping the door open in case you have further questions or concerns.
At that point, the class’s other instructor chimed in to say she agreed with the grade and that Fulnecky didn’t complete the assignment.
Everyone has different ways in which they see the world, but in an academic course such as this you are being asked to support your ideas with empirical evidence and higher-level reasoning.
I find it concerning that you state at the beginning of your paper that you do not think bullying (”teasing”) is a had thing. In addition, your paper directly and harshly criticizes your peers and their opinions, which are just as valuable as yours. Disagreeing with others is fine, but there is a respectful way to go about it. That goes for discussion posts as well as reaction papers.
Please employ more thoughtfulness in your future assignments.
Again, those are sensible comments from caring instructors who are trying to give Fulnecky advice so she can succeed in the future.
Neither of them punished her for her beliefs or views. You know how we know that? Fulnecky herself admitted that she’s cited the Bible on two earlier essays for this very course without a problem.
They merely noted that, in a class like this, students are expected to respond in a professional, academic way—even if they disagree!—and Fulnecky didn’t do it.
A decent student would take this criticism to heart, thank her instructors for grappling with her response in a way she failed to do with the paper she was assigned to read, and think about how she can do better in the future.
But Fulnecky is a conservative who sees herself as the Riley Gaines of essay writing. She demands to fail upwards because the alternative is admitting you’re just not that good compared to your peers. She thinks she’s owed a top score even though she wasn’t talented enough to earn it.
So she instinctively whined about her grade to—I shit you not—Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, the university president, the dean of her college, several reporters, and the anti-teachers’ union group now headed up by former State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters.
“In this situation, my instructor found it offensive to be quoting from the Bible,” Fulnecky said in her email. “I don’t believe I should receive a failing grade on an assignment based upon my opinion. I am reaching out to all of you to see if you can help me.”
…
“To be what I think is clearly discriminated against for my beliefs and using freedom of speech, and especially for my religious beliefs, I think that’s just absurd,” Fulnecky told The Oklahoman.
Say it all together now: She wasn’t punished for quoting the Bible. She wasn’t punished for being a Christian. She was punished for turning in a shitty essay that didn’t complete (or even begin) the assignment.
It wasn’t until four days later, according to The Oklahoman, that she finally filed “a formal discrimination complaint and an academic appeal” with her school.
Well, if her goal was attention, she’s getting it now.
Had she written a better essay, it might be easier to argue she was being discriminated against, but she wrote a piece so embarrassing, you’d have to be a moron to defend it.
So, naturally, the university’s chapter of right-wing group Turning Point USA announced they “stand with Samantha.”
… We should not be letting mentally ill professors around students. Clearly this professor lacks the intellectual maturity to set her own bias aside and take grading seriously. Professors like this are the very reason conservatives can’t voice their beliefs in the classroom. Kuddos to Samantha for leading by example and standing up for what she believes in. @uofoklahoma, do better!
Did Fulnecky write that caption too? Yikes. She deserves no “kuddos” for failing an assignment that never took seriously. (Interestingly enough, the comments under that post mercilessly mock TPUSA_OU for defending her. One representative reaction? “I think she failed bc it didn’t follow the rubric and the essay sounds like it was written by a 10 year old.”)
So far, Stitt hasn’t responded to her, nor should he. And the school has responded with a generic statement saying that there’s a process in place if students want to complain about their grades… which is frankly all they need to say.
Meanwhile, right-wing politicians are jumping on this. State Senator (and Christian Nationalist) Dusty Deevers claimed this incident “raises serious First Amendment concerns” before implying this would never happen to a Muslim or transgender student:
If a conservative professor gave a Muslim or transgender student a zero for expressing their convictions, the university would treat it as a civil-rights crisis. The standard must be the same when the student is a Christian.
The standard is already the same. If a Muslim or trans student turned in an essay this useless, then they, too, would receive (and deserve!) a failing grade. Deevers is falling for the argument that the world is biased against Christians when the reality says conservative Christians just whine whenever they can’t succeed on a neutral playing field. (Also, this is Oklahoma. You don’t get to complain about anti-Christian bias in Oklahoma.)
Fellow Christian Nationalist State Sen. Shane Jett jumped in to argue that this was the fault of “DEI” and that the university’s president should be fired as a result of this student not being given a perfect score for her shitty paper.
It is high time that the OU Regents take seriously their fiduciary responsibility to the students AND the Oklahoma Taxpayer and remove OU President Joseph Harroz… and replace him with someone who has the moral courage to actually lead the university instead of this anemic, irresponsible amoral placeholder.
State Rep. Justin Humphrey also chimed in with word salad that failed to address just how awful her essay was:
“I believe the instructor at OU, a graduate teaching assistant, violated the free-speech rights of this student by giving her a failing grade for her Bible-based essay,” Humphrey said.
…
“Once again, I would like to call out OU’s anti-Christian rhetoric and its WOKE policies,” Humphrey said.
And State Rep. Gabe Woolley misgendered the instructor and implied that transgender people are inherently unfit to teach a psychology class. In response to criticism that Fulnecky got the grade she deserved, Woolley insisted everyone was “missing the point” because a trans person shouldn’t have been teaching the class.
Meanwhile, Fulnecky’s conservative mother has been retweeting anti-trans propaganda for days now.
Samantha Fulnecky is a junior majoring in psychology. If she ends up with a degree at this point, you have to wonder what that says about the quality of education the University of Oklahoma is even offering. Want to laugh even harder? As a tennis player who didn’t compete, she was named to the “2025 Spring SEC Academic Honor Roll” over the summer. The standards are clearly much lower than you’d expect. (She’s no longer on the tennis team, though it’s unclear why.)
Maybe she realized her best shot of future success won’t be in the world of psychology, where she’s obviously incapable of understanding the field, but with some right-wing group that offers nothing of value to society but has no shortage of grievances. That’s all this is, anyway. Most students who fail an assignment keep it quiet out of embarrassment—it happens to a lot of people and it’s nothing to be ashamed about!—but it’s people like Fulnecky who instantly assume it’s because of discrimination and not because of their own lack of ability.
At the same time, save some thoughts for Mel Curth, the grad student caught up in the middle of this. They did everything you would hope a teacher would do in terms of giving the right grade and then carefully explaining why it was deserved, only to face all kinds of online harassment from conservatives who have nothing but contempt for trans educators. (OU’s Department of Psychology appears to have deleted a post on Facebook congratulating Curth for receiving a Graduate Teaching Award, meant to reward someone who goes “above and beyond in their dedication to teaching, mentorship, and student success.” That may be due to online brigading from trolls.)
The university responded to this whole mess yesterday by announcing that Curth was on administrative leave as an investigation continues into the matter:
The University of Oklahoma takes seriously concerns involving First Amendment rights, certainly including religious freedoms. Upon receiving notice from the student on the grading of an assignment, the University immediately began a full review of the situation and has acted swiftly to address the matter.
First, the college acted immediately to address the academic issue raised by the student. College leaders contacted her on the day her letter was received and have maintained regular communication throughout the process. As previously stated, a formal grade appeals process was conducted. The process resulted in steps to ensure no academic harm to the student from the graded assignments.
Second, the student reported filing a claim of illegal discrimination based on religious beliefs to the appropriate university office. OU has a clear process for reviewing such claims and it has been activated. The graduate student instructor has been placed on administrative leave pending the finalization of this process. To ensure fairness in the process, a full-time professor is serving as the course instructor for the remainder of the semester.
OU remains firmly committed to fairness, respect and protecting every student’s right to express sincerely held religious beliefs.
That’s a lot of words to say that the student will not receive the grade she earned on the assignment (why not?) and that Curth is no longer teaching this class pending the investigation. An investigation, I need to repeat, that involves the crime of giving a student the grade she deserved for an assignment she didn’t bother doing the right way.
Several people responded with this image:
At the end of the day, this is about accountability—not religious persecution—and Fulnecky’s absolute refusal to accept any. She didn’t fail this assignment because she’s a devout Christian. She failed because she didn’t do the assignment. There’s no indication she read the article, understood anything it said, or can form a response to something that doesn’t involve parroting right-wing talking points. Even an assignment like this isn’t a culture war battle; sometimes, you just have to do the damn work. All we learned from her essay is that she’s not prepared for the work of psychology and unprepared for a world in higher education. Or lower education, for that matter.
It says a lot that the only person who behaved with integrity in this saga is the graduate instructor who gave Fulnecky detailed, thoughtful feedback. And that’s the only person who’s now being persecuted.
What conservatives are now doing by posting their outraged reactions is painfully transparent and predictable. They can’t defend the quality of her work, so they’re ignoring it. Instead, they’re using vague language to argue her failing grade is proof of religious bigotry and nothing else. All they want to do is further inflame their base and turn conservatives against educators, as if right-wing students are all special little snowflakes who deserve top scores regardless of the quality of their work. (To be fair, if there’s one thing we’ve learned from this Republican administration, it’s that no one gets ahead based on merit.)
If Fulnecky had any ability to be introspective and thoughtful, she would openly admit she just doesn’t know how to write a response essay, thank her teachers for their thoughtful feedback, announce that she’ll do whatever it takes to earn a higher score in the class, and urge her right-wing allies to calm the fuck down.
Don’t hold your breath. The persecution narrative is strong and lucrative on the right.
Conservative Christians are very quick to play the victim any time they are rebuffed in their attempts to force their beliefs on others. This girl is not a victim but in her mind and the minds of like minded evangelicals. The evangelicals are also the people most likely to persecute others if given the chance. If you want to see what genuine persecution looks like, hand power to the preachers.
Girl if you believe so strongly in Biblical gender roles wtf are you doing in higher education...