The University of Oklahoma has made an announcement about the Samantha Fulnecky affair. It’s the wrong one.
A student’s claim of religious discrimination on an individual assignment in an online Psychology Course taught by a graduate teaching assistant has come to resolution. As stated previously, the student followed two available processes at the University: the grade appeals process in the college and she made a formal claim of illegal religious discrimination. As already announced, the grade appeal was decided in favor of the student, removing the assignment completely from the student’s total point value of the class, resulting in no academic harm to the student.
The claim for discrimination has been investigated and concluded. The University does not release findings from such investigations.
At the same time of the investigation, the Provost—the University’s highest ranking academic officer— and the academic Dean reviewed the full facts of the matter. 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 graduate teaching assistant will no longer have instructional duties at the University.
Because this matter involves both student and faculty rights, the University has engaged in repeated and detailed conversations with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to ensure there is an understanding of the facts, the process, and the actions being taken.
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 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.
So the university “investigated” and concluded that the respectful, entirely correct evaluation of the essay by the TA, Mel Curth, was out of line, and has fired her from all of her teaching obligations. I think that means they have lost all of their income, unless they also have a research fellowship. And for what? Because they applied solid academic standards to a student paper and deservedly failed her work.
They haven’t thought through the consequences of this action. Every OU student now has a cheat code: mention Jesus in your crappy essay, and you’ve got an excuse to protest if you don’t get a passing grade. That immediately devalues a diploma from OU. I know I’m going to be sneering at modern OU degrees from now on.
Another consequence is that it’s only going to get worse — Christian fundamentalists will flood into OU, while secular students will look for just about any other university to attend.
I can’t wait to claim religious discrimination when my geology paper about a flat Earth is downgraded. It’s in the Bible‽
I believe the student has publicly admitted that they did not read the article the paper was supposed to be about and wrote the paper in 30 minutes.
These obscene decisions are just the sort of ignorant, bigoted, transphobic crap that is destroying the credibility of what is left of the educational system in this DEATH SPIRAL country!
I hope that TA, Mel Curth, finds a better position at a civilized institution.
This is what will happen to anyone trapped in the dysfunctional state of Oklahoma and teaching any where.
When they see an answer or essay full of fundie xian gibberish, they will have to give it a 100% and an A and move on.
What other choice do they have anyway?
.1. If they grade that answer on its merits, they get fired immediately and everyone from the governor to the head of the University and the “Academic Dean” (Cthulhu knows what pressure they put on them) sign on to that.
.2. They can follow the new University guidelines and keep their job, while the would be martyr slides through the school without the attention they were looking for.
If you want to fight for what is right, you have to pick your battles well, and this one is a guaranteed loss.
FWIW, there have been many court cases about this sort of situation.
In normal states, the fundie xian creationists have lost.
Here are two.
and
PS I’ll add here that when teaching evolution, you can be careful and ask for what science has found out about evolution and what the Theory of Evolution is and says.
That sidesteps the problem that science, reality, and the Theory of Evolution falsifies some people’s religious beliefs.
People can believe whatever they want and no one can make you believe in the Theory of Evolution. But that isn’t what the question is asking. It is asking about knowledge, whether you believe it or not is your own business.
OU is not a university. It is a training facility designed to put academically marginal students into the NFL and to generate millions of dollars in the process. The inclusion of non-athletes at the facility is merely a smokescreen to provide cover for this real purpose.
In the news:
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/politics/2025/12/23/mel-curth-samantha-fulnecky-essay-oklahoma-ou-graduate-students-demand-reinstatement/87895839007/
↓
The dispute has gained national attention, millions of comments on social media and sparked a student-led protest at the university.
In a statement late Monday, leaders of the OU Graduate Student Senate said they disagree with OU’s decision and insist that Curth be reinstated. They added that the decision indicates the administration has “not sufficiently reflected on the harm that these actions will cause the graduate student, the general student body and the university’s faculty.”
“If we, the students, are the University’s promise, then the University owes us integrity, excellence, self-reflection, and the courage to stand up for its instructors,” they said. “The administration’s actions have depreciated all of OU’s degrees, directly harming OU’s student body.”
To add a fuller perspective on this debacle. In the 1960’s the Univ. of Calif. system, think Berkley, was a open to all viewpoints and there were only a few reasonable limitations put on free expression in that troubled time. However, now, that same system has become a willing tool slurping up the koolaid of the nasty yahoo aipac bigots.
https://www.juancole.com/2025/12/californias-outlawing-criminalizes.html
California’s New Law Outlawing Criticism of Israel Quashes Academic Freedom, Criminalizes Teachers
H. Scott Prosterman 12/22/2025
A California District Court hearing on was held on Wednesday, December 17, over an injunction sought by plaintiffs represented by the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) against a new law, California AB 715, which is supposedly intended to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism. But it no more does that than does that than convicted felon Donald Trump’s Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, to which many mainstream Jews object. Rather, it demonizes and criminalizes teachers who dare to be candid about the realities of Israel and Palestine.
However, I fear that, as happens in all these cases, all these protests will intentionally be ignored by the terrible xtian terrorist bigots of the admin of UofO.
Wheee! down the Death Spiral we’re pushed.
Whoa, I must admit that @6 Raven posted a few exceptions to my blanket condemnation. However, from what I’ve read over the past couple of years the odds are greatly in favor of the xtian and aipac terrorists.
shermanj, I took a look:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB715
That bill does not say what Juan Cole claims it says.
(Did you read it for yourself, instead of taking his claim at face value?)
[oops, wrong tab, I was looking at the original]
The bill: https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab715
To @13 John Morales. you are correct in that it does not specifically state that. However, having read a different posting of excerpts of that bill, others in our org. have also concluded, the real world effect of it would be consistent with what Prosterman wrote.
How so, shermanj?
It’s very clear what it says. And it ain’t about criticising Israel.
Maybe read the bill itself; 1(c)..(e) has the gist: