By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The University of Oklahoma has removed a teaching assistant from their instructional duties following a controversy over a failing grade given to a student. The student, Samantha Fulnecky, received an F on an essay about gender norms, which she claimed was due to religious discrimination. An investigation revealed that the teaching assistant was arbitrary in their grading standards, leading to the decision. Fulnecky’s grade appeal was resolved in her favor, while the university stated they do not release findings from discrimination investigations.
Read the original article here
Oklahoma college instructor is fired after giving failing grade to a Bible-based essay on gender.
The situation at the University of Oklahoma involving the firing of an instructor is a complex one, sparking a heated debate about academic freedom, religious expression, and the standards of academic work. The core of the matter centers around a graduate teaching assistant who assigned a failing grade to a student’s psychology paper. The student, Samantha Fulnecky, had submitted an essay rooted in her religious beliefs, using the Bible to argue against the concept of multiple genders. The instructor’s decision to give a failing grade, citing the essay’s failure to meet the assignment’s requirements and its reliance on personal ideology, has led to significant controversy and, ultimately, the instructor’s removal from teaching duties.
This case quickly became a focal point for conservative groups and commentators online. They framed the situation as an example of religious discrimination, claiming the instructor was penalizing Fulnecky for expressing her conservative Christian views. This interpretation resonated within the ongoing discussions about academic freedom on college campuses, especially in the context of broader debates around diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, as well as discussions on race, gender, and sexuality. It’s clear that the incident tapped into a wider ideological battle, fueling pre-existing tensions regarding the role of religion in education and the perceived biases within academic settings.
The university, in its official statement, indicated that its investigation found the instructor’s grading of the paper to be “arbitrary,” without offering further details. Notably, the state of Oklahoma has enacted legislation, supported by the Republican-dominated legislature and signed by the governor, that prohibits the use of public funds for DEI programs. However, this legislation explicitly protects “scholarly research” and “the academic freedom of any individual faculty member.” This adds another layer of complexity, highlighting the tension between the state’s policies and the university’s commitment to academic principles.
The student’s essay, as provided to the press, makes her position clear. She argued that the societal promotion of “multiple genders” is “demonic” and harmful to American youth, going against what she believes is God’s plan. The instructor, in providing feedback, stated that the essay did not address the assignment’s core questions, contained internal contradictions, relied on personal ideology over evidence, and was, at times, offensive. The instructor also emphasized that the failing grade was not due to the student’s beliefs.
However, many who have reviewed the essay, including other instructors in the course, have agreed with the instructor’s assessment, criticizing the student’s writing quality, lack of sources, and deviation from the assignment’s instructions. The general consensus appears to be that the essay was poorly written, did not meet the word count, and failed to engage with the assigned material. It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the essay, regardless of its subject matter, simply did not meet the standards expected of a college-level assignment.
There is a stark contrast between the essay’s content and the expectations of a psychology assignment. In a field that relies on empirical research and evidence-based arguments, the essay’s reliance on personal belief and lack of supporting evidence are glaring omissions. Many feel the student’s writing was not even up to the standard of a high school student, and as such deserved the failing grade. There’s a clear disconnect between what the assignment required and what the student delivered, leading to the conclusion that the failing grade was justified based on the quality of the work and its adherence to the assignment’s guidelines.
The controversy also brings into question the broader implications for education and academic standards. If a student can fail to meet basic requirements of an assignment and then generate a firestorm of controversy by playing the victim card, it erodes the integrity of academic grading. Further, the incident touches upon the role of personal beliefs in academic contexts. While students are entitled to their personal beliefs, academic work requires them to engage with those beliefs in a way that respects evidence, logical reasoning, and established academic standards.
This situation appears to be part of a broader trend: a decline in the ability to think critically and express ideas. It underscores the challenges faced by universities in navigating the complexities of academic freedom, religious expression, and political polarization. Ultimately, this case in Oklahoma highlights the need for a balanced approach that respects diverse perspectives while upholding the fundamental principles of academic integrity and the pursuit of knowledge.
The firing of the instructor, and the controversy surrounding it, is not merely an isolated incident; it’s a reflection of the challenges facing higher education in a rapidly changing social and political landscape. The case underscores the need for clear guidelines, open communication, and a commitment to protecting academic freedom, while also ensuring that students meet the standards necessary for a college education.