University Of Oklahoma Republican Head Insists Professor Who Gave Samantha Fulnecky Zero In Controversial Essay Is 'Correct'

The political firestorm surrounding a University of Oklahoma psychology assignment took an unexpected turn this week after the head of the Oklahoma Federation of College Republicans publicly rejected claims of ideological discrimination and instead defended the professor who gave student Samantha Fulnecky a failing grade. In a statement later removed from X, chairman Conner Tranquill said the paper that sparked national attention was academically 'indefensible' and that the zero was 'demonstrably correct'.

The case, which has drawn coverage from local outlets to political commentators, centres on Fulnecky's claim that she received a zero because of her religious and conservative beliefs. She has since appeared on local news stations asserting she was discriminated against, while Turning Point USA's OU chapter amplified her story as an example of ideological bias on campus. But Tranquill, one of the state's most visible young conservative leaders, argued the opposite — insisting the assignment failed on academic grounds alone.

READ MORE: Samantha Fulnecky: OU Student Given 'Zero' for Bible-Based Essay Now Hailed as 'American Hero' by Far-Right Leader

READ MORE: University of Oklahoma Essay Controversy: Professor 'Review-Bombed', Netizens Smell a Set-up

A Rare Public Reprimand From Within the Party

In his statement, Tranquill criticised not only the essay but the decision of TPUSA's OU chapter to elevate it publicly, calling the move 'a serious lapse in judgment'. He wrote that the paper failed to meet foundational college-level requirements, noting that it did not cite its primary source — the Bible — and did not address the assignment's academic objective.

'We are not the party of participation trophies,' he added, arguing that conservative student groups weaken their credibility when they rally behind poor-quality work. That unusually candid tone led observers to remark that it was 'rare when you see a Republican go off script and speak truth', as one viral Reddit comment put it.

However, within hours of posting the message, Tranquill's X account was set to private for a time, and the statement could no longer be publicly accessed.

Some users speculated he had faced internal pressure, while others suggested he had grown tired of online backlash. His silence since the post's removal has only intensified questions about how the controversy is playing inside Oklahoma's conservative student circles.

Currently, Tanner's profile is set back to public, but his profile photo says he will be away from the platform for 90 days.

University Investigation Continues as Professor Placed on Leave

OU confirmed that the essay dispute is the subject of an active investigation, and the professor involved has been placed on administrative leave as per university protocol. The school also clarified that Fulnecky's zero will not affect her academic standing while the review is ongoing.

The university's decision to temporarily remove the professor from classroom duties has further fuelled online speculation, with some arguing it validates Fulnecky's discrimination claims. Others say it reflects standard procedure rather than wrongdoing — a measure taken routinely to ensure neutrality during academic disputes.

Student reactions on social platforms remain divided. Supporters of Fulnecky argue that even poorly executed assignments should not be grounds for ideological bias, while critics counter that academic standards must be enforced consistently. Across platforms like Reddit, many users expressed that regardless of politics, the essay did not meet basic expectations for a college-level submission.

Fulnecky Takes Her Case Public as Debate Widens

While the investigation unfolds, Fulnecky has been using airtime on local news outlets to describe herself as an advocate for students who feel silenced in academic environments, firm on defending her faith in public. Her media appearances frame the controversy as part of a broader struggle for ideological representation in higher education, a message resonating strongly with conservative audiences.

But Tranquill's statement has complicated that narrative. His insistence that conservative movements must not conflate political identity with academic performance introduced a tension many on the right are now openly debating: whether the push to defend students ideologically risks undercutting long-term efforts to demonstrate academic rigour and intellectual credibility.

What remains clear is that the controversy has moved far beyond a single psychology essay. It now sits at the intersection of student politics, academic standards, and national debates over bias in higher education — with both sides claiming the incident supports their broader worldview.