A trans-identifying graduate assistant at the University of Oklahoma has been placed on leave after giving a student a grade of “zero” for a 650-word response essay in which the student stridently defended a biblical view of gender. “It is perfectly normal for kids to follow gender ‘stereotypes’ because that is how God made us,” argued pre-med junior Samantha Fulnecky. OU teaching assistant Mel Curth, who prominently displays “she/they” pronouns, found the essay “offensive.”

“I was asked to read an article and give my opinion on the article. And the article was about gender binary and mental health and gender stereotypes, specifically in children, because it’s a lifespan development class,” Fulnecky explained.

Her response essay rejected the apparently pro-transgender premise of the article, declaring instead that “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.” To support her point, Fulnecky cited Genesis 2:20 and discussed the interpretation of the Hebrew term translated as “helper.”

“Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and [that] everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth,” she continued. “My prayer for the world and specifically for American society and youth is that they would not believe the lies being spread from Satan that make them believe they are better off as another gender than what God made them.”

But Fulnecky’s November 9 assignment received a grade of zero, out of a possible 25 points. When Fulnecky disputed this grade, Curth doubled down.

“Please note that I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs, but instead I am deducting point[s] 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 replied. “Additionally, to call an entire group of people ‘demonic’ is highly offensive, especially a minoritized population. … If you personally disagree with the findings, then by all means share your criticisms, but make sure to do so in a way that is appropriate and using the methodology of empirical psychology, as aligned with the learning goals of this class.”

In essence, Curth claimed to be “deducting points” — all the points, in fact — not for Fulnecky’s religious views, but for the fact that she dared to raise them in a science class. For this offense, Curth felt entitled to throw every offense in the book at Fulnecky, which only served to highlight the fact that Curth failed to read Fulnecky’s essay carefully (e.g., Fulnecky did not call a group of people “demonic”).

Yet Fulnecky grasped more accurately than her teacher (Psalm 119:99) that the real issue was not a contest between the Bible and science, but between different philosophical worldviews with contradictory value systems. The fact that the pro-transgender ideology was advanced by so-called experts trained in “the methodology of empirical psychology” offered it no advantage against the pre-scientific critique offered by the college junior.

In comparison with the lenient grading typical among graduate teaching assistants, Curth held Fulnecky to a standard far more stringent than the actual requirements of the assignment. The assignment required “a reaction paper demonstrating that you read the assigned article, and includes a thoughtful reaction to the material presented in the article.” The rubric gave 10 points for “a clear tie-in to the assigned article,” 10 points for “a thoughtful reaction,” and five points for being clearly written.

Fulencky contends that her essay fulfilled these requirements, albeit not in a way that her teaching assistant desired. It’s difficult to see how statements like, “I strongly disagree with the idea from the article that encouraging acceptance of diverse gender expressions could improve students’ confidence,” could fail to earn at least minimal points on the assignment.

Fulnecky’s grade dispute was also reviewed by “the other instructor for this course,” Megan Waldron (who also displays her pronouns prominently). Waldron briefly reiterated Curth’s points, assessing that “this paper should not be considered as a completion of the assignment” and rebuking Fulnecky because “your paper directly and harshly criticizes your peers and their opinions, which are just as valuable as yours.”

It’s more than a little ironic that these instructors claimed that Fulnecky’s opinions were “just as valuable” as those of her classmates. Her opinions earned her a zero on the assignment. It’s difficult to see an essay gushing with praise for the article, even if poorly written, receiving such bad marks.

It’s also ironic that Fulnecky’s essay condemned exactly the sort of groupthink that earned her a failing grade. “It is frustrating to me when I read articles like this and discussion posts from my classmates of so many people trying to conform to the same mundane opinion, so they do not step on people’s toes,” she wrote. “I think that is a cowardly and insincere way to live. It is important to use the freedom of speech we have been given in this country.”

Alas, when conservative students like Fulnecky speak up, entrenched progressive powers in many academic institutions shoot them down just as quickly.

Yet progressive academia is not the only power in America, and especially not in a state like Oklahoma. Fulnecky has received support from the OU chapter of Turning Point USA, a nationwide youth organization with a sizable public platform, in appealing the decision to university administrators. In a social media statement, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt (R) also announced that he was closely watching the outcome of her complaint.

“The 1st Amendment is foundational to our freedom & inseparable from a well rounded education,” said Stitt. “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.”

When Fulnecky appealed her case, officials at the Norman, Olka. institution at least had the good sense to show that they know a potentially catastrophic public relations crisis when they see one. “The University of Oklahoma takes seriously concerns involving First Amendment rights, certainly including religious freedoms. Upon receiving notice from the student on the grading of an assignment, the University immediately began a full review of the situation and has acted swiftly to address the matter,” the university declared.

“College leaders contacted [the student] on the day her letter was received and have maintained regular communication throughout the process,” the statement explained. “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.”

“The graduate student instructor has been placed on administrative leave pending the finalization of this process. To ensure fairness in the process, a full-time professor is serving as the course instructor for the remainder of the semester,” the statement continued. “OU remains firmly committed to fairness, respect, and protecting every student’s right to express sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Fulnecky was skeptical of the university’s characterization of their response. “The university is claiming that they’ve been in communication with me,” she told Fox News. “But in reality, I had no idea. I didn’t think they were going to do anything about the situation. And I honestly don’t think they would have if it hadn’t blown up on social media the way it did.”

However quickly OU responded to this mid-semester grade dispute, it would be premature to evaluate the full scope of their response until their investigation and any subsequent corrective action is taken. What is clear, however, is that conservative students like Fulnecky have little confidence in the state university’s administration — even in ruby-red Oklahoma — to defend their free speech rights against the progressive academy. Perhaps Oklahoma conservatives will conclude that they should have responded to this latter-day Norman invasion a bit Sooner.

Fulnecky hoped her example would inspire other people to reject socially acceptable lies and stand up for what is true, especially the truth of God’s word. “It can be pretty scary, but Jesus is always worth standing up for,” she urged, “and I just encourage those people that are dealing with something similar to push back against that kind of behavior and really fight for your university to change, because if we don’t speak up about it, they’re not going to do anything to change it.”