The University of Oklahoma has removed a psychology instructor from teaching duties following an inquiry into a grading dispute with a student who alleged she faced religious persecution after receiving a failing grade on a paper regarding gender stereotypes.

University officials confirmed that Mel Curth, a graduate teaching assistant for the lifespan development psychology course, would no longer have instructional duties at the university. A university review determined that Curth was “arbitrary” in grading the specific assignment.

Third-year student Samantha Fulnecky had claimed she was penalized for her Christian faith after receiving a zero on the paper. Grading feedback indicated the score was issued due to a lack of required empirical evidence and the use of “offensive language” in an essay that characterized gender diversity as “demonic.”

The controversy centered on a written assignment requiring students to submit a 650-word response to an academic study. The study examined whether conformity with gender norms was associated with popularity or bullying among middle school students.

Fulnecky, a pre-med student, submitted an essay that relied heavily on biblical scripture rather than the scientific material assigned. In the paper, Fulnecky argued against the existence of multiple genders.

“Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth,” Fulnecky wrote in the essay.

Fulnecky further wrote that “God created men in the image of His courage and strength, and He created women in the image of His beauty,” adding that women naturally possess “womanly desires.”

Curth, who is transgender, received a grade of zero out of 25 points. In written feedback obtained by The Oklahoman, Curth clarified that the grade was based on academic criteria rather than the student’s personal worldview.

“Please note that I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs,” Curth wrote.

The instructor noted that the submission “contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive.” Ultimately, Curth ruled that the essay did “not answer the questions for the assignment.”

Following an investigation into the matter, the university released a statement in late December addressing its findings regarding the instructor’s grading standards.

“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 read.

Consequently, the university stated Curth would “no longer have instructional duties at the University.”

Regarding the student’s academic standing, the university noted that the grade appeal had been decided in Fulnecky’s favor, and the paper was removed from her total point value to ensure “no academic harm” occurred.

Curth has since appealed the decision. In a statement released by her attorney, Brittany Stewart, Curth denied engaging in discriminatory behavior.

“It is her position that the investigation was flawed, failed to consider all possible motives and issues, and that new evidence has come to light that undermines the investigation’s conclusion,” Stewart stated.

The university did not release specific findings regarding Fulnecky’s separate claim of religious discrimination, stating it does not disclose the results of such investigations.