OU Called 'Disgusting' After Fulnecky Got Her Professor Permanently Fired Over Alleged 'Religious Discrimination'

The University of Oklahoma (OU) has permanently terminated an instructor following a legal and academic firestorm sparked by the grading of a student's essay on biblical gender roles. The decision follows an intensive internal review and the threat of litigation regarding the First Amendment rights of Samantha Fulnecky, a student who alleged she was targeted for her religious convictions. University officials confirmed the dismissal this week, citing a failure to adhere to the institution's policies on religious neutrality and academic freedom.

A Conflict of Faith and Academia

The controversy began when Samantha Fulnecky submitted an assignment for a 'Lifespan Development' psychology course that utilised scriptural references to argue against modern gender theory. According to the formal complaint filed with the university's Office of Institutional Equity, the instructor gave the paper a zero out of 25, citing a lack of 'empirical evidence'.

Fulnecky alleged that the instructor's feedback was not merely academic but personal, with the instructor, Mel Curth, reportedly describing the student's worldview as 'offensive' in the digital grading portal. The student soon took her grievance public, sharing snippets of the correspondence on social media platforms via the OU chapter of Turning Point USA, where the story garnered millions of views.

The university initially defended the instructor's right to set academic standards, but the narrative shifted as Governor Kevin Stitt and other state officials argued the grading was punitive. Attorneys pointed to the university's own student handbook, which prohibits discrimination based on creed, as a primary pillar of their demand for a grade reversal and disciplinary action.

Legal Implications and the First Amendment

The legal pressure on the University of Oklahoma intensified when advocacy groups suggested the instructor's actions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Court documents and letters of intent indicated that the student was prepared to seek damages exceeding £76,000 ($100,000) for emotional distress and academic sabotage.

In a press release issued by the university, the administration noted that while instructors have the authority to grade based on rubric adherence, they cannot disparage the underlying religious identity of a student. The internal investigation reportedly reviewed feedback transcripts in which the instructor claimed the student's use of the word 'demonic' to describe gender fluidity was 'highly offensive'.

The university's decision to move from a standard reprimand to a permanent termination suggests that the evidence of bias was deemed incontrovertible by the Title IX coordinators. However, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has since condemned the move, arguing that academic standards should not be overridden by religious pressure.

Reaction From the Campus Community

The campus remains deeply divided, with some student organisations calling the university's compliance 'disgusting' and a capitulation to external political pressure. A protest held on the South Oval on Dec. 5, 2025 saw faculty members expressing concerns that the firing would have a 'chilling effect' on the ability of educators to enforce scientific and secular standards.

Conversely, Fulnecky's supporters argue that the University of Oklahoma has finally taken a stand against what they perceive as an ingrained hostility toward conservative Christian students. The university has since announced a mandatory training programme for all adjunct and tenured staff focused on navigating religious diversity in the classroom.

The ivory tower has been breached by the pews, and the resulting debris has left the future of academic grading in a state of absolute uncertainty.