Univ. of Oklahoma punishes instructor for failing Christian student who didn't do the assignment

Samantha Fulnecky didn’t do the work, and the university punished the only person who noticed

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!

---

In an utterly insane declaration, the University of Oklahoma has announced that a conservative student who received a failing grade on an essay (because she deserved it) will no longer have that grade on her record. Furthermore, the grad student who gave her that grade will no longer be allowed to teach at the school.

It’s a complete capitulation to right-wing hysteria over what should have been a non-controversial agreement that the student didn’t do the work.

The short version of the story, which I reported on here, is that Samantha Fulnecky, the student in question, was supposed to write a response to a scholarly journal article. Instead of grappling with anything it said—the assignment’s rubric was loose enough that students could have talked about damn near anything connected to the article as long as they actually discussed what it said—Fulnecky turned in a four-page sermon that lashed out against transgender people, promoted traditional gender roles, and suggested that bullying kids was sometimes warranted.

Samantha Fulnecky, seen here not working on her paper (Screenshot via TPUSA_OU)

Fulnecky received a 0% on the assignment because she showed no evidence of responding to anything the paper said. Even though her beliefs were odious, graduate student Mel Curth, a trans person who was teaching this course, told her the beliefs themselves played no role in her grade. Instead, her score was earned because the paper “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.”

Curth even said: “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.”

Rather than just accepting her own incompetence, Fulnecky whined about her grade to 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.

Republicans then turned this minor incident into a full-blown spectacle to the point that it was getting play on FOX News. Because they looooooove stories of Christians who fail up. Fulnecky also filed a formal discrimination complaint—as if she was being punished for being a Christian in Oklahoma—as well as an academic appeal. Curth was put on administrative leave while an investigation took place.

Now, the school has announced the results of that “investigation” and it’s a disaster from start to finish:

A student’s claim of religious discrimination on an individual assignment in an online Psychology Course taught by a graduate teaching assistant has come to resolution. As stated previously, the student followed two available processes at the University: the grade appeals process in the college and she made a formal claim of illegal religious discrimination. As already announced, the grade appeal was decided in favor of the student, removing the assignment completely from the student’s total point value of the class, resulting in no academic harm to the student.

The claim for discrimination has been investigated and concluded. The University does not release findings from such investigations.

At the same time of the investigation, the Provost—the University’s highest ranking academic officer— and the academic Dean reviewed the full facts of the matter. Based on an examination of the graduate teaching assistant’s prior grading standards and patterns, as well as the graduate teaching assistant’s own statements related to this matter, it was determined that the graduate teaching assistant was arbitrary in the grading of this specific paper. The graduate teaching assistant will no longer have instructional duties at the University.

Because this matter involves both student and faculty rights, the University has engaged in repeated and detailed conversations with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to ensure there is an understanding of the facts, the process, and the actions being taken.

The University of Oklahoma believes strongly in both its faculty’s rights to teach with academic freedom and integrity and its students’ right to receive an education that is free from a lecturer’s impermissible evaluative standards. We are committed to teaching students how to think, not what to think. The University will continue to review best practices to ensure that its instructors have the comprehensive training necessary to objectively assess their students’ work without limiting their ability to teach, inspire, and elevate our next generation.

What a pathetic statement from a university that openly admits academics take a backseat to faith-based aggression. Curth did not have “impermissible evaluative standards.” The rubric was clear and no other student seemed to have a problem with it.

But not only will Fulnecky get to toss out that failing grade, Curth “will no longer have instructional duties” on campus. Republicans often complain about DEI—even though they don’t know what it actually is—but this is the very thing they’ve been decrying: someone getting a pass despite being unable to do the work. What part of Curth’s grading was “arbitrary”? Curth literally explained to Fulnecky the justification for the 0% and it made perfect sense; she didn’t do the work required of that course. If anything, Curth’s response to Fulnecky was an act of kindness.

Instead of giving instructors the freedom to use their expertise, the university just gave students a blueprint to avoid getting a failing grade: Just say Jesus loud enough, and all will be forgiven.

Invoking Christianity should not be a Get Out of Jail Free card for students who can’t do the assigned work. And a Teaching Assistant who dares to take the role seriously should never be punished for giving students the grades they deserve.

For what it’s worth, Curth’s attorney has now issued a statement saying Curth is considering “all of her legal remedies”:

“My client, Mel Curth, received notification from the University of Oklahoma that an investigation determined that she engaged in arbitrary grading of a student’s paper,” [Brittany] Stewart said in the statement. “Ms. Curth continues to deny that she engaged in any arbitrary behavior regarding the student’s work, and is considering all of her legal remedies, including appealing this decision by the university.”

What good will an appeal do when the cards are already stacked against you? I don’t know. But the message to professors, from the university, is that flunking a Christian will get you fired.

As I wrote before, this whole situation was always 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 was no indication she read the article, understood anything it said, or could form a response that didn’t involve parroting right-wing talking points. All we learned from her essay is that she’s not prepared for the work of psychology, much less anything involving higher education. (She apparently wants to go into the field of medicine.)

The only person who behaved with integrity in this saga was the graduate instructor who gave Fulnecky detailed, thoughtful feedback. And that’s the only person who was punished.

If Fulnecky had the ability to be introspective and thoughtful, she would openly admit she just didn’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. Instead, she took the Riley Gaines approach of blaming everyone but herself for her own shortcomings, and the conservative media world amplified the narrative from there.

The University of Oklahoma has now publicly demonstrated that its supposed commitment to academic rigor, faculty autonomy, and basic standards of evidence collapses the moment political pressure gets applied. That’s not academic freedom. It’s academic cowardice. The school wants instructors to know that doing their job too honestly is now a liability.

Fulnecky’s behavior, meanwhile, is a case study in bad faith. She was never silenced. She was just evaluated and she failed. But she knows how the right-wing ecosystem works—her mother is one of those conservative propagandists herself—and so she decided the best path forward was to pretend to be a victim rather than figure out how to earn a higher grade. That tactic worked because conservatives in general oppose education, especially if it goes against their beliefs. Young conservatives know exactly how to weaponize their identity because it’s all they ever see. (Just this week, Vice President JD Vance proclaimed that no one has to “apologize for being white anymore,” which is a thing that he fully made up.)

The sad thing is that Fulnecky is an anomaly among otherwise hard-working students, and Curth was a typical grad student TA. But because of the right-wing complaints, the school has decided that enforcing standards is unacceptable. Hell, having standards at all now risks being caught in the crossfire. This is how universities rot from the inside.

The school’s decision here now cheapens every degree it grants. It sends a clear message that effort is optional and temper tantrums are a simple way to avoid accountability. The administration should have stood by its faculty. Instead they caved to conservatives who are determined to destroy public education any way they can.

---