Look no further than University of Oklahoma for the newest culture war plaguing social media. Last week, the Turning Point USA chapter at OU published an X thread following the experience of Samantha Fulnecky, a third-year psychology student whose 650-word response to a gender-related article received a 0/25. Fulnecky’s response–utilizing her own religious convictions and citations–was met with comments from her instructor reading, “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.”
Certainly, it didn’t help that the instructor who failed Samantha Fulnecky uses she/they pronouns. Quick summary on the assignment: The article she and her peers were asked to review in this developmental psychology course dealt with gender typicality, peer relations, and mental health. In Fulnecky’s response paper, she reflected on a key phenomena taking place in higher education: “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 continued, “I strongly disagree with the idea that from the article that encouraging acceptance of diverse gender expressions could improve students’ confidence.” (We agree, Samnatha.) Albeit poorly written at times, Fulnecky articulated an important idea: boys and girls are different, and a sense of belonging in Christ would be more meaningful than supporting the notion that there are an infinite number of genders.
Unexpectedly, the media raged against Samantha Fulnecky. Across X, TikTok, and every platform imaginable, leftists ridiculed her writing–shaming everything from her grammar to her lack of academic sources. They called her sensitive and a Karen for complaining about a bad grade. “Never once have I received a bad grade and thought it was viewpoint discrimination,” one video sneered.
Let’s unpack that.
The lack of sources complaint would be valid for an academic essay, but this assignment was a reaction paper, resembling a discussion post. To clarify the difference, a discussion post is more akin to casual homework or a lightly-graded assignment. The high school or secondary equivalent would be a homework or worksheet that is typically visible to the class, or if not, intended for the teacher’s viewing to see what your thoughts are on the material.
As someone who studied humanities at the Ivy League level, I can tell you that discussion posts–more often than not–are not academic. Although these assignments require some sort of synthesis of previously studied materials, these assignments ask students to implement their own experiences. Long story short, these assignments are more creative than critical.
In fact, to all the leftists out there calling this the worst essay they’ve ever seen due to its lack of academic sources, let’s look at the assignment guidelines:
“Possible approaches to reaction papers include:
- A discussion of why you feel the topic is important and worthy of study (or not)
- An application of the study or results to your own experiences”
Most of these assignments, as Fulnecky noted, allow students to receive a good-enough grade without little-to-no critical thinking. Most students can coast off of what would have been the correct takeaway from the article: gender expectations are bad. I would imagine the majority of other student respondents include some anecdotal testimony about gender expectations in their own life–those who are personally affected and/or those who use they/them pronouns easily receive a passing grade because they can articulate the respectable societal narrative.
With that said, Fulnecky completed the assignment, in all of its criteria, and she deserved way more credit. Certainly, she had some grammatical errors and moments where she could have improved clarity. This wasn’t an A+ reaction paper. But was it an F? NO.
Failing Fulnecky wasn’t based on her inability to complete the assignment. It was based on her inability to conform to the correct response, which would have affirmed gender fluidity and rejected religious convictions.
So what’s the status now? Fulnecky filed a formal complaint with the university citing viewpoint discrimination. The result? The college instructor is now on leave. Truly, I feel sorry for the instructor, because they were not intentionally discriminating against Fulnecky’s viewpoint. This instructor is part of a much larger cultural pattern in higher education–one in which instructors have adopted the same unspoken formula for “acceptable” student responses.
Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, this pattern goes unnoticed because students know to self-censor, as Fulnecky suggested in her assignment. Students would rather write the “right” kind of personal anecdotes or lived experiences in this assignment rather than risk a hit to their grade or instructor-student relationship. This instructor now faces personal and professional consequences for taking part in a norm that is far bigger than them.
The only real difference here is that this came to light.
Ultimately, we can all agree that Fulnecky’s writing might have been clunky and redundant in a few places. Yes, the grammar could have been cleaned up. But that doesn’t change the fact that the assignment called for personal reflection, as in developmental psychology–and any of the social sciences–students are encouraged to bring outside experience into the classroom.
Fulnecky’s case is viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple. It reveals the quiet truths that religious students already know–some perspectives will be praised, others penalized. Her submission met the assignment criteria, engaged with the material, and articulated a worldview that so many Americans share.
If anecdotal experience is allowed in the classroom, then so is religion. When a worldview that believes in a spectrum of gender is considered academically valid but the Bible is not, we’ve lost ourselves.
