Position Paper 4- Wild Card

    Samantha Fulnecky's Essay and The University of Oklahoma

Higher education is currently a highly discussed topic in politics, and it is a topic that has the potential to affect both current students and alumni. One controversy has consistently circulated around social media this month regarding a student from the University of Oklahoma. The controversy at OU began when Samantha Fulnecky, a student in a psychology class, submitted an essay that received zero out of twenty-five points. Fulnecky requested an appeal for the grade, claiming that she only received the grade because she mentioned God and her Christian faith within her essay. 

The essay was graded by a teaching assistant who provided extensive feedback based on the content, grammar, and examples within the paper. The TA had also provided a rubric specifying the requirements for the assignment. According to Oklahoma News, the rubric reads:

Please remember that your reaction paper should not be a summary but rather a thoughtful discussion of some aspect of the article. Possible approaches to reaction papers include:

1. A discussion of why you feel the topic is
   important and worthy of study (or not)
2. An application of the study or results to your own
   experiences
3. An application of the study or results to
   observations about other behaviours
4. Linking the objectives or findings from the
   assigned the article to other domains of development or
   other findings that we read about or discuss in class
5. A suggestion for further studies or experiments
   that might help researchers better understand the
   topic being studied
6. Alternate interpretations of the researchers’
   findings
7. A discussion of how development in this domain
   might proceed differently at other developmental
   stages
8. Your own thoughts about how development
   proceeds in the domain
   article

Other areas of the rubric specified that elements of the article needed to tie into the student's response essay. 

The article that students were supposed to read and respond to is "Relations Among Gender Typicality, Peer Relations, and Mental Health During Early Adolescence" by Jennifer A. Jewell and Christia Spears Brown. The article discusses a study that was intended to evaluate whether children who do not fit into the stereotypical idea for their gender get teased or experience mental health issues. The term "gender atypicality" was explained in examples such as young girls being labeled as a "tomboy" due to engaging in stereotypical male activities or young boys being teased because of lacking athletic ability and having a less muscular appearance. The article was published in 2014 but still represents modern issues. 

Fulnecky's response essay did not include any information from the article aside from her expressing that it frustrated her. Instead, she simply stated her views from a Christian perspective and disregarded the evidence provided in the article's study. While this could be seen as her attempt to tie in her personal experiences, which would align with the instructor's suggestion, her opinions were not  In addition to not following the prompt provided by the instructor, Fulnecky claimed that she did not see children being teased "as a problem", which was later directly contradicted by her statement "I do not want kids to be teased or bullied in school." Based on these observations, Fulnecky's response paper did not meet the requirements for the assignment. Both the essay and the TA's response were posted by the Turning Point USA chapter at OU. 

Mel Curth, the teaching assistant for the course, provided feedback based on the issues in the paper. The comments included remarks about the inconsistencies in the essay as well as the lack of empirical evidence used in the essay. A second TA read Fulnecky's essay and included feedback that aligned with Curth's comments, agreeing with the idea that her essay did not fulfill the requirements for the assignment. 

In response to the grade and feedback, Fulnecky submitted complaints to the university and the local Turning Point USA chapter. The essay began to circulate around social media because of Fulnecky's claims that she was receiving a low grade due to her mentions of God. Many of her claims completely ignored the TA's initial statement in the feedback, which states "I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs." Several news sources took notice, and Fulnecky was invited to speak on the issue. 

@news9kwtv A University of Oklahoma student is standing by her essay after receiving a zero on an assignment. She says she deserves a higher grade despite criticism over her approach and references, and the story has sparked a viral discussion online. #OUStudent #GradeDispute #ReligiousFreedom #OU #essay ♬ original sound - news9kwtv

Viewers from across the nation also saw the essay and the TA's response. While some people, especially those who are close to Fulnecky, have shared their support for the essay, an overwhelming amount of students and other adults have voiced their concern about the issue.  

@jwae62 That oU girl failed her essaybecause she didn't followdirections #college #school #thesis #fyp #viral ♬ original sound - Haiti

The University of Oklahoma later responded, stating that the grade would remain as a zero but would ultimately not affect Fulnecky's final grade. OU officials later suspended Mel Curth and posted an official response to the issue online. 

The controversy did not stop there, however, as many alumni from the University of Oklahoma took issue with the university's response. The main complaint that was voiced online was that they felt as though the quality of Fulnecky's essay did not represent the quality of work that a university should accept and that the university's response devalued the integrity of their degrees. Other alumni voiced concerns that OU did not stand behind the instructor that graded the essay, instead letting the student's complaint take precedence over Curth. One alumna, Shauna Izadi, issued a statement on OU Daily:

"What troubles me most is OU’s silence and apparent willingness to let this be framed as a political controversy rather than what it fundamentally is: an academic integrity issue. This episode reflects the broader and deeply disturbing trend in this country where education itself is treated as “dangerous” when it dares to confront prejudice or demand intellectual rigor. Yet education is the only real antidote we have to ignorance and fear.The value of my OU degrees, and the value of every degree you confer, rests on your willingness to uphold real academic standards for all students and to defend the educators who enforce them. I urge you to act in a way that restores confidence that the University of Oklahoma remains an institution where ideas are examined seriously, standards matter and education is not treated as something dangerous to be managed, but as something powerful to be defended."

Several alumni have since chosen to stop donating to the University of Oklahoma due to the controversy. Countless others have posted videos online about their fear of facing rejection at job interviews or other opportunities due to their affiliation with the university. 

@amiyaxbreon #relatable #OU ♬ original sound - 𝐉𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐢 !!★

This controversy absolutely did not need to result in the OU alumni network and other students across the nation discrediting the academic standards at the University of Oklahoma. The university's emphasis on free speech in its response is appropriate as all students have the right to share their opinions. However, its removal of the TA and removal of the zero do not display OU as being an institution that allows for strict standards to be upheld. A more appropriate response would have kept the issue between the student, the TA, and the university, instead of allowing the news' coverage of the events to result in a decision that could be seen as pandering to a specific political group. Unfortunately, this controversy will follow the university and its alumni for quite some time.