On December 22, 2025, the University of Oklahoma (OU) announced it had removed graduate teaching assistant William “Mel” Curth from all instructional duties. The decision followed a highly publicized investigation into the grading of an essay written by junior psychology student Samantha Fulnecky, who received a failing grade after citing Biblical views on gender roles. The case has ignited a national debate, drawing millions of social media reactions, sparking campus protests, and raising thorny questions about academic freedom, religious expression, and the boundaries of classroom evaluation.
The controversy first erupted in late November when Fulnecky received a zero out of 25 points on a psychology assignment that asked students to provide a thoughtful discussion of a scholarly article about gender typicality and its effects on middle schoolers’ peer relations and mental health. Instead of focusing solely on the article, Fulnecky’s essay, later published in full by The New York Times, argued that traditional gender roles reflect God’s intentional creation. She wrote, “Women naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts. The same goes for men. God created men in the image of His courage and strength, and He created women in the image of His beauty. He intentionally created women differently than men and we should live our lives with that in mind.”
Fulnecky didn’t stop there. In her essay, she described societal pushes toward nonbinary gender identification as “demonic,” a characterization that would later become a lightning rod for criticism and debate. Curth, the teaching assistant responsible for grading the paper, cited several issues with Fulnecky’s submission. According to grading feedback obtained by Fox News, Curth wrote, “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 further explained that the current scientific consensus recognizes sex and gender as neither binary nor fixed, stating, “You may personally disagree with this, but that doesn't change the fact that every major psychological, medical, pediatric, and psychiatric association in the United States acknowledges that, biologically and psychologically, sex and gender is neither binary nor fixed.” Curth also described Fulnecky’s description of nonbinary identification as “demonic” as “highly offensive, especially to a minoritized population.”
The fallout was immediate. Fulnecky filed a formal religious discrimination claim and a grade appeal, arguing that her failing grade violated her First Amendment rights. “To be what I think is clearly discriminated against for my beliefs and using freedom of speech, and especially for my religious beliefs, I think that’s just absurd,” she told The Oklahoman. She also emailed Oklahoma’s governor, OU President Joseph Harroz Jr., and the Teacher Freedom Alliance, seeking intervention in what she described as a clear case of discrimination.
In response, Curth was placed on administrative leave on November 30, 2025, as the university launched a formal investigation. The university’s provost, described as the highest-ranking academic officer at OU, personally reviewed the case. According to a statement released by the university, “Based on an examination of the graduate teaching assistant’s prior grading standards and patterns, as well as the graduate teaching assistant’s own statements related to this matter, it was determined that the graduate teaching assistant was arbitrary in the grading of this specific paper.” The statement continued, “The graduate teaching assistant will no longer have instructional duties at the University.”
The university emphasized its dual commitments to academic freedom and student rights, stating, “The University of Oklahoma believes strongly in both its faculty’s rights to teach with academic freedom and integrity and its students’ right to receive an education that is free from a lecturer’s impermissible evaluative standards. We are committed to teaching students how to think, not what to think.” The university also confirmed that Fulnecky’s grade had been restored and that her grade appeal was decided in her favor. However, OU did not release the findings of its investigation into the religious discrimination claim, citing privacy protocols.
Curth, through her attorney Brittany Stewart, has denied any wrongdoing and is weighing legal options, including an appeal. “Ms. Curth continues to deny that she engaged in any arbitrary behavior regarding the student’s work, and is considering all of her legal remedies, including appealing this decision by the university,” Stewart told The Oklahoman. The attorney’s statement marked the first time Curth was publicly named in the controversy, as previous reports had withheld her identity.
The incident has become a flashpoint in the ongoing national debate over free speech, academic standards, and the rights of students and instructors. Supporters of Fulnecky argue that she was unfairly penalized for expressing her religious beliefs in a university setting. “I definitely think that I was being punished for what I believe because I very clearly stated in my essay in my response to the article, I very clearly stated my beliefs and stated what — not just my beliefs — but what the Bible and what God says about gender and about those roles,” Fulnecky told Fox News Digital.
On the other hand, defenders of Curth and some academic observers have pointed out that the assignment was to engage with a scholarly article on gender typicality using critical thinking and, ideally, empirical evidence. They note that Fulnecky’s essay relied heavily on personal ideology and religious doctrine, which may not meet the expectations of a scientific or psychological analysis. The assignment’s rubric, however, did not explicitly require empirical evidence, adding another layer of complexity to the dispute.
The university, for its part, has walked a careful line. In its December 22 statement, OU underscored the importance of both faculty autonomy and student protections, stating, “The University will continue to review best practices to ensure that its instructors have the comprehensive training necessary to objectively assess their students’ work without limiting their ability to teach, inspire, and elevate our next generation.” The statement also highlighted the school’s ongoing conversations with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to ensure transparency and understanding of the process.
Meanwhile, the case has reverberated far beyond the Norman campus. Student-led protests have taken place at OU, and the story has been widely discussed on national news outlets and social media platforms, reflecting broader societal tensions over the intersection of faith, identity, and education. The university’s decision to remove Curth from teaching duties was met with both applause and criticism from different quarters—some see it as a victory for religious freedom, while others worry it sets a precedent that could chill academic rigor and open the door to ideological grading disputes.
As Curth considers an appeal and the university reviews its practices, the episode stands as a vivid reminder of the challenges universities face in balancing diverse beliefs, academic standards, and the rights of all members of their campus communities. The debate, it seems, is far from over.