The University of Oklahoma (OU) has taken decisive action against a graduate teaching assistant, removing her from instructional duties. This follows a formal complaint by an undergraduate student who alleged she received a failing grade on a psychology assignment due to religious discrimination, after her paper cited the Bible and rejected the concept of multiple genders.
University Investigation and Immediate Fallout
In a statement released on the social media platform X on Monday, the public university confirmed the outcome of its internal probe. The investigation concluded that the instructor, Mel Curth, had acted in an "arbitrary" manner when she awarded zero points to the paper submitted by 20-year-old junior Samantha Fulnecky. As a direct result, the university announced that Curth "will no longer have instructional duties." The institution has not provided further details beyond this public statement.
Through her attorney, Brittany Stewart, Mel Curth has firmly denied the allegations. In a statement emailed to The Associated Press on Tuesday, Stewart asserted that Curth did not "engage in any arbitrary behaviour regarding the student’s work" and is actively "considering all of her legal remedies." Curth herself has not responded directly to media inquiries.
The Disputed Assignment and Political Amplification
The controversy stems from an assignment in a lifespan development psychology course. Students were tasked with writing a 650-word response to an academic study on whether conformity to gender norms affected popularity or bullying in middle school.
Fulnecky's essay, a copy of which was shared with The Oklahoman, explicitly rejected the assignment's premise on religious grounds. She referenced the Bible, arguing that "the lie that there are multiple genders" was "demonic" and damaging to youth, claiming it deviated from God's plan. Instructor Curth's feedback, however, focused on academic standards. She noted the paper failed to answer the assigned questions, contained contradictions, and relied on personal ideology over empirical evidence. The feedback also stated parts were offensive but clarified the grade was not deducted due to the student's personal beliefs.
The case rapidly gained national traction after being amplified online by conservative groups and commentators, including Turning Point USA. They framed it as an example of conservative Christian views being penalized in academia. Oklahoma's Republican Governor, Kevin Stitt, called the situation "deeply concerning."
Broader Implications for Academic Freedom and Faculty Rights
Following Fulnecky's appeal, the university excluded the assignment, worth 3% of the final grade, from her assessment. Curth was initially placed on administrative leave before the final decision to strip her of teaching responsibilities.
In its statement, OU tried to balance competing principles: "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," adding, "We are committed to teaching students how to think, not what to think."
However, faculty rights advocates have criticized the university's move. Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, told The New York Times that the decision undermines academic standards. He argued that instructors have the professional duty to evaluate work based on academic criteria, which this paper did not meet, and labeled OU's action as part of a wider trend to politicize classroom instruction.
This incident occurs within a charged political context in Oklahoma. Earlier this year, the state's Republican-led legislature passed a law, signed by Governor Stitt, banning public universities from using state funds for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programmes. Notably, the law states it does not restrict scholarly research or individual faculty's academic freedom.
The episode remains a flashpoint, leaving legal uncertainty as Curth explores options to appeal. It underscores the ongoing, intense debate over the limits of academic freedom, student expression, and the intersection of personal religious belief with scholarly evaluation in public higher education.
