A storm is brewing at the University of Oklahoma, ignited by a failing grade and accusations of viewpoint discrimination. The controversy began when student Samantha Fulnecky received a zero on an essay after expressing her Christian beliefs regarding gender norms, beliefs rooted in biblical teachings.
The assignment asked for a reaction to a scholarly article on gender norms in middle schoolers. Fulnecky responded with a thoughtful, faith-based perspective, arguing against the idea of fluid gender identities and emphasizing the importance of traditional roles. Her words, however, drew sharp criticism from the teaching assistant, William “Mel” Curth.
Curth, who uses she/they pronouns, marked the essay down not for the beliefs themselves, but for a perceived lack of “empirical evidence” – a requirement not explicitly stated in the grading rubric. The assistant’s feedback also suggested the essay was “offensive” and contradicted established scientific consensus on sex and gender.
Fulnecky felt targeted, believing her faith had directly influenced the failing grade. She maintained she simply offered her honest opinion, as the assignment requested, and was shocked by the severity of the response. The incident quickly escalated, sparking outrage and a campus divide.
A protest formed to support Curth, leading to another layer of controversy. An assistant teaching professor, Kelli Alvarez, allegedly offered excused absences to students participating in the pro-Curth demonstration. This sparked accusations of bias when a student seeking to join a counter-protest was denied the same courtesy.
Kalib Magana, president of the Turning Point chapter, requested an excused absence to participate in the counter-protest, but was told by Alvarez that a “documented group” of participants would need to be organized first. Critics argued this demand unfairly burdened Magana and suppressed opposing viewpoints.
The University swiftly responded, condemning the alleged discrimination. A school director immediately intervened, declaring the lecturer’s actions “inappropriate and wrong.” The director emphasized that the classroom should foster critical thinking, not dictate beliefs, and ensured all students would be excused from class to attend either protest without penalty.
Alvarez was removed from the classroom for the remainder of the semester and placed on administrative leave pending a full investigation. University officials affirmed their commitment to a learning environment free from preferential treatment based on political beliefs.
Curth is also currently on administrative leave. The situation has ignited a national conversation about academic freedom, religious expression, and the responsibility of educators to maintain neutrality in the classroom. The University of Oklahoma has declined to comment further, leaving many questions unanswered.
At the heart of the matter lies a fundamental question: can a student’s deeply held beliefs be openly expressed in an academic setting without fear of reprisal? The unfolding events at the University of Oklahoma suggest the answer is far from simple.
