University of Oklahoma Instructor Placed on Leave Following Religious Discrimination Complaint Over Grading
A heated controversy is brewing on the campus of the University of Oklahoma (OU) after a graduate student instructor was placed on administrative leave amid allegations of religious discrimination stemming from a failing grade on a student’s paper. The incident has quickly escalated from a classroom dispute into a statewide political flashpoint, drawing national attention to the ongoing debate over academic freedom and religious expression in higher education.
The instructor, Mel Curth, was removed from teaching duties pending a full investigation after junior Samantha Fulnecky filed a formal complaint with the university. The dispute centers on an essay Fulnecky submitted for a psychology course on lifespan development. The assignment asked students to write a reaction paper to a study on gender norms.
Fulnecky’s 650-word paper, which cited her Christian beliefs, asserted that the “belief in multiple genders” was “demonic” and argued for Biblically-based foundations for gender roles. Curth gave the paper a zero grade, reportedly noting that calling “an entire group of people ‘demonic’ is highly offensive, especially a minoritized population.” A second instructor for the course independently reviewed the paper and concurred with the assessment, stating the essay failed to satisfy the assignment’s requirements for empirical evidence and higher-level reasoning.
The student, however, claimed she was penalized for expressing her sincerely held religious beliefs and filed a claim of illegal discrimination. Fulnecky found immediate and significant public support from conservative activist groups, including the OU chapter of Turning Point USA, which shared her experience online.
The University of Oklahoma has since confirmed that Curth, a graduate student instructor, has been placed on administrative leave “to ensure fairness” while the review is conducted. The university stressed that it “takes seriously concerns involving First Amendment rights, certainly including religious freedoms.” A full-time professor has taken over the course for the remainder of the semester. OU officials have also stated that the disputed grade—which only accounted for a small percentage of Fulnecky’s overall score—will not be allowed to cause the student any “academic harm.”
The situation gained further momentum when Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt weighed in, publicly urging the OU Board of Regents to investigate the matter and asserting that students should not be “penalized” for their religious beliefs. This intervention has elevated the disagreement over a single psychology paper into a broader conversation about ideology and inclusion in Oklahoma’s higher education system.
As the university’s investigation into the alleged religious discrimination continues, the central question remains: Where is the line between a student’s right to express their faith and the academic requirement for a paper to meet the standards of a given discipline, particularly one focused on behavioral science? The outcome of OU’s review is now being watched closely by academics, free-speech advocates, and political commentators across the country.