University of Oklahoma officials placed a graduate teaching assistant on leave Sunday after a student who was given a failing grade on a written assignment claimed she was discriminated against due to her religious beliefs.

Samantha Fulnecky, a junior psychology major at the university, submitted an essay response to an assigned article in a psychology class about how people are perceived based on societal expectations of gender. Her response focused on her interpretations of the Bible and the ways in which she disagreed with the article.

“The article discussed peers using teasing as a way to enforce gender norms. I do not necessarily see this as a problem. God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose. God is very intentional with what He makes, and I believe trying to change that would only do more harm,” Fulnecky wrote. “Overall, reading articles such as this one encourage [sic] me to one day raise my children knowing that they have a Heavenly Father who loves them and cherishes them deeply and that having their identity firmly rooted in who He is will give them the satisfaction and acceptance that the world can never provide for them.”

Fulnecky’s instructor, Mel Curth, a graduate teaching assistant in the psychology department, gave Fulnecky a zero on the essay.

“Please note that I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs, but instead I am deducting point [sic] for you posting a reaction paper that does not answer the questions for this assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive,” Curth wrote in response to Fulnecky.

“While you are entitled to your own personal beliefs, there is an appropriate time or place to implement them in your reflections. I encourage all students to question or challenge the course material with other empirical findings or testable hypotheses, but using your own personal beliefs to argue against the findings of not only this article, but the findings of countless articles across psychology, biology, sociology, etc., is not best practice.”

Fulnecky appealed, first contacting Oklahoma governor Kevin Stitt, University of Oklahoma president Joseph Harroz Jr. and the Teacher Freedom Alliance, The Oklahoman reported.

“In this situation, my instructor found it offensive to be quoting from the Bible,” Fulnecky wrote in the email. “I don’t believe I should receive a failing grade on an assignment based upon my opinion. I am reaching out to all of you to see if you can help me.”

She then filed a discrimination complaint with the university, which is being reviewed, university officials said. While Curth is on leave, a full-time professor will teach the class for the remainder of the semester.

If this chain of events sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Undergraduate students are grabbing headlines by looping in politicians to challenge what can be taught, spoken about and evaluated for credit in college classrooms, with material about gender identity drawing particular attention this year. Over the summer, an unnamed student at Texas A&M University filmed herself challenging the legality of an instructor’s gender identity lesson. When the student provided the footage to a Texas politician, the resulting online firestorm led to the ouster of the instructor, demotions of two administrators and the resignation of Texas A&M president Mark Welsh.

Curth’s assignment asked students to write 650-word reaction papers “demonstrating that you read the assigned article, and [including] a thoughtful reaction to the material presented in the article,” according to the assignment instructions circulating online. “Possible approaches to reaction papers include: 1. A discussion of why you feel the topic is important and worthy of study (or not). 2. An application of the study or results to your own experiences.”

Students were graded based on three criteria: whether the paper showed a clear tie-in to the assigned article, whether the paper presented a thoughtful reaction or response to the article rather than a summary, and whether the paper was clearly written. In total, the assignment was worth 25 points. Fulnecky received zero.

“Additionally, to call an entire group of people ‘demonic’ is highly offensive, especially a minoritized population,” Curth wrote, referring to a section in Fulnecky’s paper in which she wrote, “Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth.”

Megan Waldron, another instructor for the course, also sent feedback to Fulnecky.

“I concur with Mel on the grade you received. This paper should not be considered as a completion of the assignment,” Waldron wrote. “Everyone has different ways in which they see the world, but in an academic course such as this you are being asked to support your ideas with empirical evidence and higher-level reasoning. I find it concerning that you state at the beginning of your paper that you do not think bullying (‘teasing’) is a bad thing.”

In a statement Sunday, University of Oklahoma officials said, “The college acted immediately to address the academic issue raised by the student. College leaders contacted her on the day her letter was received and have maintained regular communication throughout the process. As previously stated, a formal grade appeals process was conducted. The process resulted in steps to ensure no academic harm to the student from the graded assignments.”

Stitt also responded to the situation in an X post Sunday.

“The 1st Amendment is foundational to our freedom & inseparable from a well rounded education,” he wrote. “The situation at OU is deeply concerning. I’m calling on the OU regents to review the results of the investigation & ensure other students aren’t unfairly penalized for their beliefs.”

The dispute has prompted a flurry of discussion online from both sides of the political spectrum. The University of Oklahoma Turning Point USA chapter has widely circulated Fulnecky’s story, her essay and Curth’s responses. The conservative student group stands on Fulnecky’s side, writing on X, “Clearly this professor lacks the intellectual maturity to set her own bias aside and take grading seriously. Professors like this are the very reason conservatives can’t voice their beliefs in the classroom.”

Professors at other universities are debating online whether they would have given Fulnecky points based on the rubric.

“This won’t be a popular opinion, but I don’t think the instructor was right here. The assignment said that the goal was for students to demonstrate they completed the readings *and* they could do so by reflecting on, among other things, their personal experiences,” Anthony Michael Kreis, a constitutional law professor at the Georgia State College of Law, wrote on Bluesky.

Others online have called Fulnecky’s paper and resulting complaint a bad-faith attack on transgender people.

“It’s not great that a student can turn in a bad essay but vaguely point to the Bible and religious beliefs as an excuse for not following the actual assignment and terrible writing. That’s not what college is supposed to be,” Alejandra Caraballo, a civil rights attorney and an instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, wrote on Bluesky. “The professor did nothing wrong but she was pulled off the course anyways.”