Grading that Oklahoma University student's paper
The first reason that we want to cite is to give credit to people’s original ideas and works. Giving credit where it is due also allows your readers to find the original information if they want to learn more.
—Oklahoma University Libraries, “Why do we cite sources?”
The University of Oklahoma made headlines this week when it placed a psychology instructor, Mel Curth, on leave after a student, Samantha Fulnecky, filed a discrimination complaint. (A second instructor was just placed on leave as well, evidently for excusing students to attend a protest against the University’s handling of the situation.)
Fulnecky is a junior psychology major.
Turning Point USA, whose OU chapter fueled the fire online, has called Curth “mentally ill” (which they presumably intend as a transphobic slur). Meanwhile, former Superintendent of Education Ryan Walters has called Fulnecky “an American hero,” writing that she
stood firm in her faith despite the radical attacks from the Marxist professors at the University of Oklahoma. The OU staff involved should be immediately fired and OU should not be receiving taxpayer dollars if they continue their assaults on faith. The war on Christianity is real, and we will not be silenced.
The quick support for Fulnecky from usual suspects who have framed her bad grade as a religious freedom issue, and who regularly traffic in anti-education sentiment and transphobic rhetoric, begs the question of whether they really believe Fulnecky’s paper deserved a better graded, but so far I Fulnecky’s supporters haven’t seemed anxious to address the content of the actual assignment or her response to it.
According to the New York Times,
The assignment in the “Lifespan Development” class was to read a scholarly article on “gender typicality, peer relations, and mental health,” and then write a “thoughtful discussion of some aspect of the article,” according to documents posted by The Oklahoman.
“Lifespan Development” seems to be listed now as “Developmental Psychology” on the OU website, and consists of “Survey of the psychological changes across the life span; the changes in cognitive, social and emotional physiological development from conception to death will be included.”
The assigned article, “Relations Among Gender Typicality, Peer Relations, and Mental Health During Early Adolescence,” by Jennifer A. Jewell and Christia Spears Brown of the University of Kentucky, was published in the research journal Social Development. It describes a statistical analysis of questionnaires given to students at a public middle school to examine the psychological impacts of students’ perceived adoption of gender roles. In other words, it seems to be exactly the kind of article a student electing to take an upper-level developmental psychology course might expect to be assigned.
As Inside Higher Ed reported, the assignment explicitly required reacting to the journal article, and suggested that students provide one of the following:
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.”
The Inside Higher Ed piece went on to explain that,
Megan Waldron, another instructor for the course, also sent feedback to Fulnecky.
“I concur with Mel on the grade you received. This paper should not be considered as a completion of the assignment,” Waldron wrote. “Everyone has different ways in which they see the world, but in an academic course such as this you are being asked to support your ideas with empirical evidence and higher-level reasoning. I find it concerning that you state at the beginning of your paper that you do not think bullying (‘teasing’) is a bad thing.”
Reading the paper Fulnecky turned in makes it clear that, at the very least, she did not address the assignment in full.
The paper never quotes or closely paraphrases the article, responding instead to the general idea of gender identity in children with opinions that the author claims, without specific citation, are biblically-based. It also seems difficult to give it full credit for being a “thoughtful response,” when compared with the writing of the average upperclassman college psychology major. And the writing, while perhaps clear at times in the colloquial sense, isn’t clear in an academic sense.
The grade
Here is the full text of Fulnecky’s essay (via Newsweek), with my own annotations as footnotes:
This article1 was very thought provoking and caused me to thoroughly evaluate the idea of gender and the role it plays in our society2. The article discussed peers using teasing as a way to enforce gender norms. I do not necessarily see this as a problem3. God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose. God is very intentional with what He makes, and I believe trying to change that would only do more harm. Gender roles and tendencies should not be considered “stereotypes”. Women naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts. The same goes for men. God created men in the image of His courage and strength, and He created women in the image of His beauty. He intentionally created women differently than men and we should live our lives with that in mind.
It is frustrating to me when I read articles like this and discussion posts from my classmates of so many people trying to conform to the same mundane opinion, so they do not step on people’s toes.4 I think that is a cowardly and insincere way to live. It is important to use the freedom of speech we have been given in this country, and I personally believe that eliminating gender in our society would be detrimental, as it pulls us farther from God’s original plan for humans. It is perfectly normal for kids to follow gender “stereotypes” because that is how God made us. The reason so many girls want to feel womanly and care for others in a motherly way is not because they feel pressured to fit into social norms. It is because God created and chose them to reflect His beauty and His compassion in that way. In Genesis,5 God says that it is not good for man to be alone, so He created a helper for man (which is a woman). Many people assume the word “helper” in this context to be condescending and offensive to women. However, the original word in Hebrew is “ezer kenegdo” and that directly translates to “helper equal to”. Additionally, God describes Himself in the Bible using “ezer kenegdo”, or “helper”, and He describes His Holy Spirit as our Helper as well. This shows the importance God places on the role of the helper (women’s roles). God does not view women as less significant than men. He created us with such intentionally and care and He made women in his image of being a helper, and in the image of His beauty. If leaning into that role means I am “following gender stereotypes” then I am happy to be following a stereotype that aligns with the gifts and abilities God gave me as a woman.6
I do not think men and women are pressured to be more masculine or feminine. 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.
Overall, reading articles such as this one encourage me to one day raise my children knowing that they have a Heavenly Father who loves them and cherishes them deeply and that having their identity firmly rooted in who He is will give them the satisfaction and acceptance that the world can never provide for them.7 My prayer for the world and specifically for American society and youth is that they would not believe the lies being spread from Satan that make them believe they are better off as another gender than what God made them. I pray that they feel God’s love and acceptance as who He originally created them to be.
A four-paragraph personal opinion statement without quotes or citations from the assigned article, which doesn’t appear to substantively address the prompt, seems beneath the reasonable expectations for a junior taking a course in her chosen major (particularly for a junior who has indicated she intends to attend medical school after graduating).
And according a rubric shared online by Turning Point USA (via News 9), the grading criteria were clear:
Is the paper clearly written? (5 points)
Does the paper show a clear tie-in to the assigned
article? (10 points)Does the paper present a thoughtful reaction or
response to the article, rather than a summary? (10
points)
As a high school English teacher, I might have given Fulnecky partial credit for writing clearly. While not always appropriate for an academic audience, her writing might meet the standard of what sounds like a regular, low-point assignment.
I could not have awarded her any points for demonstrating “a clear tie-in to the assigned article,” and at best maybe could have given her half credit for her reaction to the article. Fulnecky chose not to address the journal article in any way that indicates she read it. And her vague assertion about feeling okay about children “teasing to enforce gender norms,” aside from being concerning coming from someone in the third year of studying psychology, doesn’t address the findings of the study or the larger implications of its results (which she provides no evidence she has read).
Even in a high school course, in other words, this paper seems unlikely to earn more than eight out of the fully twenty-five points (32%, or a failing grade), and that seems generous.
Free speech?
But the bigger issue in framing the grade as a religious freedom or free speech issue is that it undermines the vital experience of taking a course where students are exposed to ideas that provide context for the world in which they live. Fulnecky is under no obligation to like or agree with the article, but as a student, she is obliged to read the assignment for the course, and, presumably, to provide an appropriately academic response.
And a professor, as long as they can grade according to consistent criteria, has a right, and perhaps a duty, to push back on the kind of transphobic nonsense Fulnecky seems most interested in pushing. The OU psychology department is accredited by the American Psychological Association, which has consistently affirmed the importance of evidence-based gender-inclusive care, writing,
the APA underscores the importance of an accurate understanding of evidence-based care— highlighting the continuous need for research and expansion of the scientific foundation to further ensure full access to competent and reliable healthcare…. as essential to promoting inclusivity; protecting the rights of transgender, gender-diverse, and nonbinary individuals; and ensuring that they receive the necessary support and full healthcare attention, inclusive of psychological and medical care, in a compassionate and affirming manner.
Presumably the APA expects that psychology courses it accredits will reflect current research-based information about gender, specifically in courses addressing developmental psychology.
While that certainly doesn’t mean Fulnecky has to agree with the APA, it does make it even more striking that OU hasn’t more fully supported its instructor for voicing similar opinions to that of its accrediting agency.
Ultimately, the only way Fulnecky’s right to voice a controversial set of opinions can be protected is for OU to consistently protect the rights of all students and staff to voice opinions on those same topics. If a professor can’t push back thoughtfully on transphobic rhetoric in a psychology course, free speech isn’t really the issue. If intellectual freeom write large is not protected, the University is merely selecting which viewpoints it thinks are allowable— and even supporters of Fulnecky’s positions should fear that.
The larger agenda
As many other commentators have pointed out, the fact that Fulnecky has pretty clear connections to a world of people who have a bad faith interest in smearing “woke” professors, as well as the fact that she chose to share this particular set of opinions in a course with a professor who is transgender, makes it highly plausible that this whole thing is a stunt to provoke more outrage, while ultimately harming intellectual freedom for everyone concerned.
As Peter Greene recently summarized,
Mom is an attorney who has, among other things, defended two January 6 insurrectionists. She’s a right wing podcaster who served in politics, including a stint in combat with local government when they went after her for taxes owed because she operated a business without a license; just a political witch hunt, she claimed. During the height of the pandemic, she sued over mask mandates and sued Springfield Public Schools over their hybrid re-opening plan. As a local councilwoman, she regularly blocked anyone who corrected her. She apparently is also good at threatening legal-ish letters.
The most striking thing about Fulnecky’s paper is how thoroughly it avoids addressing the assignment. One would think an ideal test case for the kind of “woke professors are attacking religious freedom” argument which Walters and others are so ready to make would be a well-written paper that actually did address the assignment, while cogently presenting an alternative viewpoint.
But, if the paper was intentionally a means to troll the professor and/ or set up a test case, perhaps Fulnecky or her supporters didn’t have confidence that the professor would give a well-written paper with a controversial argument a bad grade.
It’s not clear whether the general expectation for this college-level psychology course is that students adhere to a style manual, like the APA style guide, but generally academic writing should cite referenced articles and other materials, including specific information like author, title, and edition. Fulnecky’s paper, which makes only vague references to the assigned article, and general citations to an unspecified edition of the Bible, contains no direct citations to any text.
This first sentence appears to be Fulnecky’s thesis. It does not address the prompt, because it does not take a position on whether the topic of the article is “worthy of study (or not)”. The rest of the paper never addresses this requirement, either.
Again, while the student is entitled to the opinion that it is not “wrong” for children to tease one another to “enforce gender norms,” this opinion does not address the prompt, which requires students to address (in the context of a psychology course) whether the topic merits study, as well as an application of the results of the research (and not simply the concept of gender identity) to the student’s experiences.
Here, as throughout the paper, Fulnecky could have better supported her argument if she provided examples, especially from the article (which she mentions but does not paraphrase or quote) or from her experience.
Assuming that a theological discussion is relevant to the article (and I believe it is, if it pertains to the student’s “own experience”), it would be helpful for Fulnecky to cite the specific version of the Bible being cited here. (Part of the reason academic style guides require this is so that readers can check the accuracy of the evidence being presented, and see it in its full context. Or, as one of OU’s tutorials on academic integrity puts it, “The first reason that we want to cite is to give credit to people’s original ideas and works. Giving credit where it is due also allows your readers to find the original information if they want to learn more.”)
Here Fulnecky comes close to at least addressing the second requirement, but fails to tie any specific ideas from the article to her own experience.
Not to belabor the point, but again Fulnecky begs the question: What was it about the article, specifically, that made you react this way? How does the specific information in the article relate to your own experiences?