Trans Instructor Dismissed After Failing Christian Student
University action highlights tensions over academic freedom, belief, and classroom standards
In a contentious academic dispute that has sparked national debate, the University of Oklahoma (OU) has dismissed a graduate teaching instructor after she failed a student’s reflective essay and a subsequent investigation upheld allegations of arbitrary grading. The case has become emblematic of ongoing debates over academic standards, religious expression, and university accountability.
The incident began in a Lifespan Development psychology course in late 2025. Students were assigned a 650-word response to an academic article examining gender typicality and peer relations among adolescents. One student, psychology junior Samantha Fulnecky, turned in an essay that drew upon her Christian convictions to critique contemporary discussions of gender.
Fulnecky’s essay argued against the concept of multiple genders, asserting that “God made us male and female” and describing opposing viewpoints as harmful to society. The paper cited Bible-based reasoning rather than empirical evidence or engagement with the assigned study, which focused on social development and peer dynamics rather than gender ideology.
The graduate teaching assistant, Mel Curth, who uses she/they pronouns and had been employed to support instruction in the course, awarded the student a zero on the assignment. Curth commented that the submission failed to address the assigned article and instead offered personal ideology with little grounding in academic standards.
A second instructor, brought in to re-grade the work, also concluded the essay did not satisfy academic expectations and likewise assigned a failing mark. According to documentation from Wikipedia’s summary of the controversy, the essay neither responded substantively to the study nor cited empirical evidence required for the assignment.
Following the grade, Fulnecky filed a formal claim of religious discrimination, alleging her faith-based arguments had been unfairly targeted. OU’s grade appeals board removed the assignment from her total grade, ensuring her academic record was unaffected. An internal investigation into claims of discriminatory grading practices was also initiated.
In a decisive ruling, OU concluded that the instructor’s grading had been “arbitrary” and that instructional duties should be reassigned. The university stated that faculty and students alike are entitled to respectful treatment and academic rigor, emphasizing its mission to help students “think, not what to think.” Officials did not publicly release detailed findings from the investigation.
The dismissal of Curth from instructional duties has ignited sharp commentary from both conservative advocates and academic watchdogs. Former Oklahoma Superintendent Ryan Walters said Fulnecky “stood firm in her faith” against what he characterized as ideological bias. He called for the university to cease what he described as “assaults on faith,” and invoked broader concerns about the treatment of religious students in public higher education.
The dispute quickly crossed campus borders. A video report about the firing has circulated widely on social media platforms and news sites, including a version on YouTube that highlighted the instructor’s removal after failing the student’s Bible-informed essay.
OU’s action has become fodder for broader policy discussions. Some state legislators have weighed measures to audit ideological bias at universities or tie funding to assurances of viewpoint fairness. Others caution against encroaching on academic freedom, stressing the importance of faculty discretion in academic evaluation.
Experts on higher education note that university classrooms are forums for intellectual challenge, not affirmations of personal belief. Academic assignments, particularly in the social sciences, are typically judged on how well students engage with evidence, methods, and disciplinary norms. A failure to meet these standards, regardless of motive, can justifiably result in a failing assessment.
Yet the political wind around faith and education ensures this episode will not fade quietly. Conservative activists argue that Christian students are increasingly pressured to conform to secular orthodoxy, while academic institutions claim they must uphold universal criteria for scholarly work. The clash underscores a persistent tension between freedom of conscience and the demands of academic rigor.
As the story continues to unfold, university administrators face mounting pressure from both parents and policymakers to articulate clear standards that respect free expression while safeguarding educational integrity.