Samantha Fulnecky, a junior at the University of Oklahoma, became the focus of a national debate in late 2025 after a classroom grading dispute escalated into a broader controversy over First Amendment rights, academic freedom, and religious expression in higher education. What began as a routine psychology course assignment quickly drew national media attention, student protests, and an internal university investigation that ultimately resulted in the removal of a graduate teaching assistant from instructional duties.
The case has raised complex questions about how universities balance students’ rights to express religious beliefs with instructors’ authority to enforce academic standards, particularly on sensitive topics such as gender and identity. Samantha Fulnecky’s experience has since been cited by advocates on both sides of the debate as emblematic of deeper tensions playing out on college campuses across the United States.
The Essay That Sparked the Dispute
The controversy originated in November when Samantha Fulnecky submitted a 650-word essay for a psychology course at the University of Oklahoma. The assignment required students to respond to an article examining how individuals are perceived based on societal gender expectations. In her essay, Fulnecky challenged the notion that traditional gender roles should automatically be classified as harmful stereotypes. She argued instead that long-standing gender distinctions have a meaningful foundation and that efforts to eliminate gender categories altogether could have negative consequences for society.
To support her argument, Fulnecky cited the Bible and framed her position within her Christian beliefs. According to her essay, removing gender distinctions would move society “farther from God’s original plan for humans,” a view she described as rooted in her faith rather than animosity toward any group. She later said she believed the assignment allowed room for personal perspective, particularly since it addressed social perceptions and values related to gender.
The essay was graded by Mel Curth, a graduate teaching assistant serving as the course instructor. Fulnecky received a zero on the assignment. In written feedback posted on the university’s online grading platform, Curth stated that the essay lacked empirical evidence and described portions of it as offensive. One comment specifically criticized language that characterized an entire group of people as “demonic,” noting that such phrasing was “highly offensive, especially [to] a minoritized population.” Curth maintained that the grade reflected academic deficiencies rather than the student’s religious beliefs.
Trans instructor at Oklahoma University fired for flunking student’s viral Bible-based essay on gender https://t.co/X6EKRdBPkW pic.twitter.com/6zXL59MKiy
— New York Post (@nypost) December 23, 2025
Fulnecky disagreed with that assessment and soon took her concerns beyond the classroom. In an interview with The Oklahoman, part of the USA TODAY Network, she said she believed she was penalized primarily for citing the Bible and expressing her religious views. She described the grade as discriminatory and argued that it violated her First Amendment rights, particularly her freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Her comments quickly gained traction online, drawing attention from national media outlets and advocacy groups concerned with religious liberty on college campuses.
University Response and Investigation
As the dispute gained visibility, Fulnecky formally filed a complaint with the University of Oklahoma alleging religious discrimination. She also submitted a grade appeal, asking the university to review the decision to assign her a zero on the essay. The university responded by placing Curth on administrative leave while it conducted an internal investigation into both the grading decision and the discrimination claim.
In early December, the university ruled in Samantha Fulnecky’s favor on the grade appeal. Officials determined that the essay would not count toward her final course grade, effectively nullifying the zero. While the university did not publicly detail the reasoning behind the grade appeal decision, the outcome marked a significant development in Fulnecky’s case and further fueled public debate.
On Dec. 22, the University of Oklahoma released a statement announcing that it had completed its investigation into the discrimination complaint. The university said the graduate teaching assistant involved would no longer have instructional duties, explaining that it had determined the instructor “was arbitrary in the grading of this specific paper.” Although the university confirmed that the investigation was complete, it declined to release specific findings related to the discrimination claim itself.
Read : Jesse Mack Butler Avoids Jail Time After Being Convicted of Raping Two High School Students
In its statement, the university emphasized its commitment to balancing academic freedom with students’ rights. “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,” the statement said. It added that the institution is committed to “teaching students how to think, not what to think,” a phrase that resonated widely in coverage of the case.
Curth, through her attorney Brittany Stewart, disputed the university’s conclusions. In a statement to The Oklahoman, Stewart said Curth continued to deny engaging in arbitrary grading and was considering her legal options, including an appeal of the university’s decision. The statement underscored that the instructor viewed the matter as a disagreement over academic standards rather than discrimination based on religion.
The case also prompted student-led protests on campus. Demonstrators gathered outside administrative buildings, some carrying signs and chanting in support of Curth, while others rallied behind Fulnecky. The protests reflected a divided campus community grappling with competing interpretations of academic rigor, inclusivity, and free expression.
Why the Case Resonated Nationally
Samantha Fulnecky’s experience struck a chord far beyond the University of Oklahoma because it intersected with ongoing national debates about free speech, religion, and gender in higher education. Supporters of Fulnecky argued that her case illustrated a growing intolerance for religious viewpoints in academic settings, particularly when those viewpoints conflict with prevailing perspectives on gender and identity. They contended that universities, as public institutions, have a constitutional obligation to protect students’ rights to express sincerely held beliefs, even when those beliefs are unpopular or controversial.
Critics of Fulnecky’s position, however, cautioned that academic freedom includes the right of instructors to require evidence-based arguments and to challenge language they view as harmful or exclusionary. They argued that citing religious texts in a psychology course does not necessarily meet disciplinary standards for empirical support and that instructors must be able to assess work based on established academic criteria. From this perspective, the controversy highlighted the difficulty of distinguishing between discrimination against beliefs and enforcement of academic norms.
The University of Oklahoma’s handling of the situation placed it squarely in the middle of these competing narratives. By ruling in Fulnecky’s favor on the grade appeal and removing the instructor from teaching duties, the university signaled concern about the fairness of the grading process. At the same time, its refusal to publicly release details of the discrimination investigation left room for continued debate and speculation.
For Fulnecky herself, the episode transformed her from an ordinary college junior into a national figure associated with discussions of religious freedom and campus culture. In interviews, she has said she did not intend to become a symbol but felt compelled to speak out after what she viewed as unjust treatment. Her case has since been referenced in commentary about how universities should navigate ideological diversity in the classroom.
As similar disputes continue to arise across the country, the questions raised by Fulnecky’s essay remain unresolved. How should public universities evaluate student work that draws heavily on religious belief? Where is the line between academic critique and viewpoint discrimination? And what responsibilities do institutions have to ensure that students can express deeply held convictions without fear of academic penalty? While the University of Oklahoma has closed its investigation, the broader conversation sparked by Samantha Fulnecky’s experience is likely to persist, reflecting enduring tensions at the intersection of education, belief, and free expression.