A graduate instructor at the University of Oklahoma was removed from classroom duties after giving a student a zero on an essay that cited the Bible to argue against transgender identities, igniting a national fight over academic freedom and religious expression. The dispute, centered on a psychology assignment about gender and lifespan development, has quickly become a test case for how public universities navigate faith-based arguments in coursework. It now sits at the intersection of campus speech, discrimination rules, and the political battle over how gender is taught.
The controversy has drawn in national advocacy groups, faculty organizations, and political commentators, each claiming the episode proves their broader point about higher education. What began as a grading decision in one Oklahoma classroom has turned into a referendum on whether students can ground academic work in scripture, and how far universities should go in policing the language students use about gender and sexuality.
The classroom clash that started it all
The conflict began in a lifespan development psychology course at the University of Oklahoma, where graduate teaching assistant Mel Curth assigned students to write about gender identity and related topics. One student, Samantha Fulnecky, chose to frame her essay around a conservative Christian view of gender, arguing that transgender identities are invalid and citing the Bible as her primary authority. Curth responded by giving the paper a failing grade of zero, concluding that the essay did not meet the academic standards of the assignment and that its treatment of transgender people was discriminatory.
According to university-focused reporting, Fulnecky’s failing grade came in an assignment that Curth had designed to encourage students to engage with empirical research on lifespan development and gender, rather than purely theological claims. The instructor’s decision to award a zero, and to characterize the essay as harmful to transgender classmates, set off a chain of complaints that quickly moved beyond the classroom. Within days, administrators were reviewing the incident, and Curth’s role as a teaching assistant was suspended while the university evaluated whether the grading decision violated institutional policies on student rights and religious accommodation, as reflected in accounts of how Fulnecky’s failing grade triggered formal action.
Who is the instructor, and what did the university do?
Graduate instructor Mel Curth, who was responsible for leading discussion sections and grading in the psychology course, found their teaching career abruptly interrupted once the controversy reached senior administrators. After Fulnecky and her supporters complained that the zero reflected anti-Christian bias, the University of Oklahoma removed Curth from teaching duties, effectively sidelining them from the classroom while an internal review unfolded. The move was framed as a temporary step, but for Curth it meant an immediate loss of income, professional standing, and the chance to complete key teaching experience required for an academic career.
Reporting on the case describes how the university’s decision was publicly linked to the Bible-based essay and the allegation that Curth had discriminated against a student on the basis of religion. In coverage that highlighted the stakes for both academic freedom and student rights, the incident was summarized as an Oklahoma instructor removed from teaching for failing a Bible-based gender essay, with university officials signaling that Curth could pursue all of her legal remedies if they believed their rights had been violated. The removal underscored how quickly a grading dispute can escalate into a high-profile personnel action when religion and gender identity collide.
The student’s argument and the role of the Bible
At the center of the dispute is Fulnecky’s decision to base her essay on a literalist reading of the Bible, treating scripture as the final word on gender and sexuality. Rather than engaging primarily with psychological research or clinical literature, she cited biblical passages to argue that gender is fixed at birth and that transgender identities are incompatible with Christian teaching. For supporters, this was an exercise of religious conviction in an academic setting. For critics, it was a refusal to engage with the course material and a direct attack on the dignity of transgender classmates.
The controversy has revived long-running debates about whether sacred texts like the Bible can serve as primary evidence in secular university assignments, particularly in disciplines grounded in empirical research. In many humanities courses, religious texts are treated as objects of study, but in psychology and other social sciences, instructors typically expect students to rely on peer-reviewed data and established theories. Curth’s defenders argue that the zero reflected this expectation, while Fulnecky’s allies insist that excluding scripture from acceptable sources amounts to discrimination against Christian students whose worldview is shaped by those texts.
How the story went national
What might have remained an internal grade appeal quickly became a national flashpoint once Fulnecky and her supporters shared the story with conservative media and advocacy networks. Coverage highlighted the image of a Christian student punished for citing the Bible, a narrative that resonated with audiences already skeptical of higher education’s treatment of religious conservatives. As the story spread, it was framed as evidence that public universities are hostile to traditional beliefs about gender and sexuality, and that Christian students risk academic penalties for expressing those views.
National outlets reported that Samantha Fulnecky, a student at the University of Oklahoma, received a zero on the essay and that the instructor argued she deserved the grade because the paper failed to meet academic standards and contained language viewed as discriminatory toward transgender people. The case was widely described as an instructor who gave a student 0 on an essay citing the Bible and was then removed from teaching, with Samantha Fulnecky portrayed as standing up for her faith in the face of institutional pressure. That framing helped transform a local personnel decision into a national culture-war story.
Academic freedom versus discrimination claims
As the dispute escalated, two competing rights claims came into sharp focus. On one side, Curth and their supporters argue that instructors must have the freedom to grade based on academic criteria, including whether students engage with course materials and avoid demeaning language about marginalized groups. From this perspective, penalizing an essay that dismisses transgender identities is part of maintaining an inclusive learning environment and upholding professional standards in psychology, where major associations recognize gender diversity and discourage stigmatizing rhetoric.
On the other side, Fulnecky and her allies contend that the zero represented discrimination on the basis of religion, because her arguments were rooted in sincerely held Christian beliefs. They argue that public universities, as state institutions, cannot punish students for expressing faith-based views, even when those views conflict with prevailing academic or political norms. This tension between academic freedom and anti-discrimination protections is not new, but the Oklahoma case has given it fresh urgency, especially as similar disputes over classroom speech and grading practices surface across the country.
Faculty pushback and the AAUP’s warning
The removal of Curth from teaching duties prompted a strong reaction from faculty advocates, who warned that the university’s response could chill instructors’ willingness to enforce academic standards. The American Association of University Professors, often abbreviated as AAUP, issued a statement criticizing the suspension and arguing that it undermined core principles of academic freedom. Faculty members sympathetic to Curth stressed that if a single grade can trigger removal whenever a student alleges religious discrimination, instructors may feel pressured to pass work that does not meet disciplinary expectations.
Local reporting noted that a Correction was later added to clarify the date of the AAUP statement, but the substance of the group’s concerns remained unchanged. The American Asso of university professors emphasized that graduate instructors like Curth are particularly vulnerable, since their employment is often contingent and their future careers depend on teaching evaluations and departmental support. By siding with the student’s religious discrimination claim before fully vetting the academic issues, critics argue, the university signaled that political optics could outweigh the judgment of trained educators.
Advocacy groups on both sides seize the moment
The Oklahoma dispute has become a magnet for national advocacy organizations that see the case as a vehicle for their broader agendas. On the religious liberty side, conservative groups and commentators have rallied around Fulnecky, portraying her as a victim of ideological intolerance on campus. Organizations that focus on mobilizing young conservatives, such as TPUSA, have highlighted the story as evidence that universities are hostile territory for students who hold traditional Christian views on gender and sexuality, and have used it to energize supporters and donors.
On the secular and church-state separation side, groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation have taken a different view, arguing that public universities must protect students from religiously motivated attacks on their identities. In coverage of the Oklahoma case, representatives of the Freedom From Religion have suggested that instructors should be allowed to mark down or fail work that uses religious doctrine to deny the legitimacy of transgender people, especially in courses that are supposed to be grounded in scientific research. For these advocates, the real danger is not discrimination against Christian students, but the possibility that religious arguments will be given special protection even when they conflict with academic standards and anti-harassment policies.
Free speech, campus climate, and the politics of gender
The clash over Curth and Fulnecky is unfolding against a broader backdrop of intense political battles over how gender and sexuality are discussed in schools and universities. Across the country, lawmakers and activists are pressuring institutions to either restrict or defend classroom discussions of transgender identities, often invoking free speech and parental rights. In this environment, a single grading dispute can quickly become a symbol for larger fears about indoctrination, censorship, or discrimination, depending on who is telling the story.
Video coverage of the Oklahoma incident shows how quickly the narrative hardened into familiar talking points. In one segment, a host explained that the Freedom From Religion Foundation was weighing in on the essay incident at OU involving a student and a graduate instructor, underscoring how national groups now monitor even local classroom conflicts for signs of broader trends. As these organizations amplify the case, the campus climate at the University of Oklahoma becomes more polarized, with some students fearing that expressing religious views could lead to backlash, and others worrying that anti-trans rhetoric will be shielded from criticism if it is framed as faith-based.
What the Oklahoma case signals for future classroom disputes
The outcome of the Curth and Fulnecky dispute is likely to shape how universities handle similar conflicts in the years ahead. Administrators are watching closely to see whether legal challenges emerge, particularly around claims that the university discriminated against Curth by removing them from teaching, or against Fulnecky by initially upholding the zero. Policies on syllabus language, grading criteria, and classroom conduct may be revised to spell out more clearly how religious arguments can be used in assignments, and where the line is drawn when those arguments target protected groups such as transgender students.
For instructors, the case is a reminder that grading decisions are no longer purely academic judgments, especially when they intersect with hot-button issues like gender identity and religion. Many faculty members are likely to respond by documenting expectations more thoroughly, building in explicit requirements that students engage with scholarly sources, and seeking departmental backing when controversial essays arise. For students, the Oklahoma episode sends a mixed message: faith-based perspectives are part of the public university landscape, but invoking scripture in place of research can carry academic risks, and the fallout from a single assignment can extend far beyond the classroom once it enters the national culture-war arena.
More from Decluttering Mom:
