Samantha Fulnecky: Academic Standards and the Boundary Between Belief and Evidence

A grading dispute involving University of Oklahoma student Samantha Fulnecky has jumped from a psychology classroom into a national argument about religion, speech, and what “college level” writing requires in an evidence based literature. Fulnecky, a junior, received a zero on an assignment after submitting an essay that cited the Bible and described belief in multiple genders as “demonic,” according to reporting on the case.

The assignment came from a Lifespan Development course and asked students to write a 650 word response to a peer reviewed study examining whether conformity with gender norms is associated with popularity, bullying, and mental health outcomes among middle school students. Fulnecky later filed a religious discrimination complaint and pursued a grade dispute with the university. 

The paper was graded by graduate teaching assistant Mel Curth. In feedback described in multiple reports, Curth said the submission did not answer the assignment’s questions and relied heavily on personal ideology rather than empirical evidence in a scientific class. Fulnecky argues that the zero punished her for expressing Christian beliefs. 

The dispute gained national attention after the University of Oklahoma chapter of Turning Point USA publicized screenshots of the paper and the instructor’s comments, prompting online backlash and political commentary that included Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt. The university placed Curth on administrative leave, reassigned the course to a full time professor, and said the failing grade would not affect Fulnecky’s academic standing while the complaint is reviewed. 

Faculty advocates cited in coverage, including the American Association of University Professors, criticized the university’s move as an intrusion into academic judgment and warned it could chill academic freedom. At the same time, the university has framed its actions as part of a review process and as a step to prevent academic harm during the investigation.

The case has become a culture war object because it offers two easy headlines. One side calls it religious persecution on campus. The other side calls it a targeted campaign against an instructor. Both can be argued in good faith. Both can also be used to avoid the more uncomfortable issue of academic standards.

That issue is whether religious reasoning can function as adequate support in a research based psychology assignment. Promoting your religious beliefs can be meaningful and socially constructive, and universities should not demand that students hide faith. But in an evidence driven discipline, belief is not the same thing as evidence. The Bible is not empirical evidence. It is scripture. It can guide a person’s morals and worldview, yet it cannot, by itself, test or verify claims about adolescent development, bullying dynamics, or mental health outcomes.

That is why the reported grading rationale matters. If a student does not meaningfully engage the assigned study, summarize it accurately, and respond using the standards the field recognizes, a low grade is not discrimination. It is a judgment that the student did not complete the task. A student can disagree on moral grounds and still earn a strong grade by addressing the study’s methods, definitions, measures, and conclusions, then supporting critiques with sources the discipline accepts.

The more controversial lesson is what happens when a grade becomes a political spectacle. Universities may believe that neutralizing the disputed score during an investigation protects a student from academic harm. Critics see a different incentive. If a grade can be effectively reversed through viral pressure, students learn that escalation may be more effective than revision, and instructors learn that enforcing standards on politically sensitive topics can carry personal and professional costs. 

The university’s review will determine whether policies were followed and whether the grade aligned with course expectations. But the underlying conflict is already clear. Students should be free to hold and express religious beliefs. Evidence based courses should be free to require evidence, and to grade accordingly.

Image credit: Turning Point USA at University of Oklahoma