When Faith Meets Academia: A Student’s Struggle with Expression and Grading
In a contentious academic dispute that has captured national attention, University of Oklahoma junior pre-med student Samantha Fulnecky found herself at the center of a clash between religious expression and academic expectations. Fulnecky received a zero on an assignment in her lifespan development class after submitting a response paper on gender norms that reflected her Christian beliefs. The assignment asked students to respond to a scholarly article titled “Relations Among Gender Typicality, Peer Relations, and Mental Health During Early Adolescence,” which examined gender norms among middle schoolers. Students were instructed to provide a “thoughtful discussion” of some aspect of the article, with suggestions including applying the study to personal experiences or sharing thoughts about development in the research domain. Fulnecky approached the assignment as she would any other, offering her perspective through the lens of her Christian worldview – a decision that would ultimately lead to controversy and administrative action.
In her essay, Fulnecky argued that traditional gender roles should be reinforced rather than degraded, citing biblical references to support her position. “God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose,” she wrote, adding that “Gender roles and tendencies should not be considered ‘stereotypes.'” She maintained that women naturally gravitate toward “womanly things” because God created them with those desires, while men were created “in the image of His courage and strength.” Fulnecky further contended that society’s acceptance of multiple genders “is demonic and severely harms American youth,” though she clarified she opposed bullying of children. Her essay concluded with a statement about raising children with their identity “firmly rooted” in God, which she believed would provide “satisfaction and acceptance that the world can never provide.”
The teaching assistant who graded the assignment, Mel Curth, who uses she/they pronouns, awarded Fulnecky zero points out of 25 and provided a detailed critique. Curth insisted the grade wasn’t because of Fulnecky’s beliefs but rather 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 particularly took issue with Fulnecky’s characterization of non-binary gender concepts as “demonic,” calling it “highly offensive” to a “minoritized population.” The TA also challenged Fulnecky’s binary view of sex and gender, stating 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.” When Fulnecky questioned the grade, pointing out that the assignment had asked for her personal opinion, Curth reportedly stood firm.
Feeling targeted for her religious beliefs, Fulnecky escalated the matter to university administration, and her story subsequently went viral on social media. The University of Oklahoma responded with a public statement affirming it “takes seriously concerns involving First Amendment rights, certainly including religious freedoms” and had “acted swiftly to address the matter” upon receiving Fulnecky’s complaint. The university claimed it had maintained “regular communication” with Fulnecky throughout the process and conducted a formal grade appeals process “to ensure no academic harm to the student from the graded assignments.” Additionally, the university announced that Curth had been placed on administrative leave and that a full-time professor would take over the course for the remainder of the semester. However, Fulnecky disputed the university’s characterization of its response, stating she first learned about these actions through social media and believed the administration only acted because the situation “blew up on social media.”
The incident has sparked broader discussions about academic freedom, religious expression in educational settings, and perceived bias against conservative viewpoints on college campuses. Ryan Walters, former Oklahoma superintendent of public instruction who now runs the Teacher Freedom Alliance, praised Fulnecky as “an American hero” who “stood firm in her faith despite the radical attacks from the Marxist professors.” He called for the firing of involved staff and questioned whether OU should receive taxpayer funding if they “continue their assaults on faith.” Fulnecky herself has received both support and criticism online, with fellow students sending messages of encouragement while others have sent hateful responses. Despite the controversy, she remains steadfast in her position, saying, “I would rather have my integrity and give my true opinion and get a zero on an assignment than have to lie about what I really believe.”
Throughout this challenging experience, Fulnecky has encouraged other students to stand up for their beliefs despite potential academic consequences. “It can be pretty scary, but Jesus is always worth standing up for,” she stated, urging others in similar situations to “push back against that kind of behavior and really fight for your university to change, because if we don’t speak up about it, they’re not gonna do anything to change it.” When asked what message she would have for Curth, the teaching assistant who gave her the zero grade, Fulnecky responded with compassion rather than resentment: “I think I would just say that God loves him and that I am saddened that they’re offended by the truth of the gospel and the truth that I wrote about in my assignment, and it saddens me to see that that offends them and upsets them the way it did.” As this case continues to draw attention, it highlights the ongoing tensions between religious expression, academic standards, and the boundaries of subjective assignments in educational institutions across America.
