Anonymous wrote:They've now suspended a second lecture for defending academic integrity at OU. After suspending the first lecture for giving a 0, they've not suspended another lecture for NOT giving a 0

https://okcfox.com/news/local/ou-lecturer-placed-on-administrative-leave-over-protest-attendance-credit-for-students-university-of-oklahoma


The student's mother is a professional grifter:

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/who-kristi-fulnecky-more-details-ou-zero-grade-students-mums-alleged-controversies-political-1759650

Oklahoma is a cesspool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the poor writing was purposeful. If she actually put effort into it they probably would have just given her full marks on it, but she purposely wanted the low grade so that she could whine about it to the media.

I think this too but its a reaction paper but her reaction has no relevance to the topic and doesn't draw into the article. Its a poorly written rant. On the flip side, this doesn't seem like a topic or paper for a psychology assignment.

Her reaction absolutely has relevance to the article she was assigned. She doesn’t support what the article is arguing. Professors don’t assign reaction papers to factual non-controversial topics. The instructor wrote that everyone in the scientific commute agrees that sex is non-binary and not fixed. If the instructor wrote only gender were non-binary and not fixed then the zero would make more sense.

Anonymous wrote:It is an objectively bad essay and I don't have a problem with it getting a 0. It is borderline incoherent. I don't believe in rewarding such poor writing and reasoning at a college level, so I have no problem with the grade.

As to whether it is "offensive" -- I don't know. I'd have to read the article she was reacting to (has that been posted anywhere?). There are a broad variety of opinions on the hot button topic of gender norms that I would find inoffensive, including the argument that sex is binary and that a Christian God intends for humans to adhere to gender norms that reflect binary ideas of sex and gender. I don't agree with that argument, but I don't find it offensive. It's not particularly uncommon and I actually think you could make an argument grounded in social science that this sort of enforcement of gender norms ultimately benefits individuals' mental health and has pro-social effects. Again, I wouldn't agree with such an argument, but I wouldn't find it offensive. I would find it interesting and would enjoy exploring those ideas, especially in a college-level class on gender as a social construct.

The instructor should have been savvy enough to frame her reasoning for giving the grade in a way that avoided the criticism it's now getting. I would simply have said that the essay was poorly written, incoherent, and failed to provide support for the arguments made. It doesn't need evidentiary citations, as it's an opinion essay, but it does require logical reasoning to support its assertions. I would have sidestepped the question of religious belief by explaining that in an academic setting, any belief or assertion needs to be supported with reasoning. Without reasoning, there is no point in having a discussion because there is nothing to discuss. It doesn't matter if the opinion stems from religious belief or personal philosophy -- it must be supported with reasoning and in a coherent way in order to be a part of academic discourse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the poor writing was purposeful. If she actually put effort into it they probably would have just given her full marks on it, but she purposely wanted the low grade so that she could whine about it to the media.

I think this too but its a reaction paper but her reaction has no relevance to the topic and doesn't draw into the article. Its a poorly written rant. On the flip side, this doesn't seem like a topic or paper for a psychology assignment.

Her belief/worldview, which has been shaped by the Bible is that the whole premise of the research would be irrelevant if not for society having bought into this lie. I truly don't see how that doesn't tie to the article.

Anonymous wrote:he paper was specifically a "reaction paper". You read an article and write your own reaction to the article.

The directions state: You must write a 650 words (body of text), double- spaced reaction paper demonstrating that you read the assigned article, and includes a thoughtful reaction to the material presented in the article.

Points will be deducted when papers are deficient in any of these areas. I will deduct 10 points if your paper is between 620 and 649 words, and I will not give credit for papers under 620 words. Papers not turned in by the deadline
will not receive credit. 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:[b] 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[/b]

GRADING: Reaction papers are graded on a 25-point scale, and are evaluated based on the following:
1. Does the paper show a clear tie-in to the assigned article? (10 points)
2. Does the paper present a thoughtful reaction or response to the article, rather than a summary? (10 points)
3. Is the paper clearly written? (5 points)

While I think she should have gone to a right wing, Bible thumping college if she wanted to quote the Bible throughout an article, she should not have gotten a zero. That was indeed her reaction and she gave reasons why. So her paper was tied-in to the assigned article and she put some thought into the response instead of summarizing. It is repetitive and not the best writing but she should have at least gotten a couple of points. So she should have gotten half credit or at least a a few points.

Both her response and the graduate student instructor's response are so absolutely rigid and are the type of people who detract from thoughtful discussions. The graduate student instructor wrote to her she got a zero in part because the instructor wrote, "You are entitled to your own beliefs, but this isn't a vague narrative of "society pushes lies," but instead the result of countless years developing psychological and scientific evidence for these claims and directly interacting with the communities involved. You may personally disagree with this, but that doesn't change the fact that every major psychological, medical, pediatric, and psychiatric association in the United States acknowledges that, biologically and psychologically, sex and gender is neither binary nor fixed.

If the last part about sex being neither binary nor fixed is completely settled why did Scientific America publish an article in 2023 "Here's Why Human Sex is NOT Binary" in the OPINION section? If there were no controversy, it wouldn't be in the opinion section.

The graduate instructor tells her she got a zero because they claim, " to call an entire group of people "demonic" is highly offensive, especially a minoritized population. "

She starts off "This article was very thought provoking and caused me to thoroughly evaluate the idea of gender and the role it plays in our society.... I strongly disagree with the idea from the article that encouraging acceptance of diverse gender expressions could improve students’ confidence. 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. I do not want kids to be teased or bullied in school. However, pushing the lie that everyone has their own truth and everyone can do whatever they want and be whoever they want is not biblical whatsoever. The Bible says that our lives are not our own but that our lives and bodies belong to the Lord for His glory. I live my life based on this truth and firmly believe that there would be less gender issues and insecurities in children if they were raised knowing that they do not belong to themselves, but they belong to the Lord."

So she doesn't call a group of people "demonic" she says "the lie" is demonic.

If a professor wants students to write a reaction to an article that most likely promotes one view including that sex is not binary or fixed in a "Lifespan Development" class then the rubric should include only certain reactions are acceptable. One possible way listed to react is a discussion if you don't think it is worthy of study and "to your own experiences".

Anonymous wrote:
Okla college student protesting against getting 0 for her personal religious opinion submitted as a Psychology course essay.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/politics/2025/12/02/samantha-fulnecky-ou-oklahoma-bible-essay-online-debate/87553019007/

Should religious faith be allowed as the sole authority for work in science class?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the poor writing was purposeful. If she actually put effort into it they probably would have just given her full marks on it, but she purposely wanted the low grade so that she could whine about it to the media.

I think this too but its a reaction paper but her reaction has no relevance to the topic and doesn't draw into the article. Its a poorly written rant. On the flip side, this doesn't seem like a topic or paper for a psychology assignment.

Her reaction absolutely has relevance to the article she was assigned. She doesn’t support what the article is arguing. Professors don’t assign reaction papers to factual non-controversial topics. The instructor wrote that everyone in the scientific commute agrees that sex is non-binary and not fixed. If the instructor wrote only gender were non-binary and not fixed then the zero would make more sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the poor writing was purposeful. If she actually put effort into it they probably would have just given her full marks on it, but she purposely wanted the low grade so that she could whine about it to the media.

I think this too but its a reaction paper but her reaction has no relevance to the topic and doesn't draw into the article. Its a poorly written rant. On the flip side, this doesn't seem like a topic or paper for a psychology assignment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the poor writing was purposeful. If she actually put effort into it they probably would have just given her full marks on it, but she purposely wanted the low grade so that she could whine about it to the media.

I think this too but its a reaction paper but her reaction has no relevance to the topic and doesn't draw into the article. Its a poorly written rant. On the flip side, this doesn't seem like a topic or paper for a psychology assignment.

Her belief/worldview, which has been shaped by the Bible is that the whole premise of the research would be irrelevant if not for society having bought into this lie. I truly don't see how that doesn't tie to the article.