OzeEssay: When a Zero on a Reaction Paper Became a National Flashpoint Background: A Routine Assignment Turns Explosive In November 2025, Samantha Fulnecky, a 20-year-old psychology junior at the University of Oklahoma, submitted a 650-word reaction paper for her Lifespan Development course. The prompt asked students to respond to a peer-reviewed article examining gender typicality, peer rejection, and mental-health outcomes in adolescents. Fulnecky’s paper openly framed its critique through evangelical Christianity. She described binary gender as “God’s original design,” called non-binary identities a “lie from the enemy,” and argued that societal acceptance of transgender and gender-fluid concepts was spiritually harmful. While she referenced the assigned article, most of her analysis relied on biblical interpretation rather than psychological research. The paper was graded by Mel Curth, a transgender graduate teaching assistant (she/they). Curth gave it 0/25, writing in the comments: “This response substitutes personal religious ideology for engagement with empirical evidence required in a scientific psychology course. Portions are contradictory and, at points, overtly hostile to marginalized groups.” What followed was one of the fastest-escalating campus controversies of 2025. How It Blew Up Within days, screenshots of the essay and the grade were posted by the OU chapter of Turning Point USA. The post went viral, racking up millions of views on X and TikTok. Conservative influencers framed it as proof that Christian students are being systematically persecuted in secular universities. Fulnecky appeared on Fox News, Newsmax, and several popular podcasts, repeating that she was simply “speaking my truth through a biblical worldview” and that identical personal-opinion papers on earlier topics had received high marks. Almost immediately, Mel Curth was doxxed. Their full name, photo, and contact information circulated online. They reported receiving hundreds of harassing messages and at least three credible death threats, forcing them to delete social media and notify campus police. The Two Main Arguments Argument 1: This Was Religious Discrimination Supporters of Fulnecky (including Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, and numerous national conservative organizations) claim: Reaction papers are explicitly subjective and personal. Previous assignments in the same class allowed strong personal opinions without demanding peer-reviewed sources. A secular or progressive ideological stance would not have received a zero. Punishing biblical reasoning in a non-theology class violates First Amendment protections and OU’s own academic-freedom policies. Argument 2: This Was a Failure to Meet Academic Standards Defenders of the grade (including the American Psychological Association’s Division 44, several OU faculty senate members, and most LGBTQ+ student organizations) counter: Psychology is an empirical discipline; citing scripture as evidence is equivalent to citing horoscopes in a biology paper. The essay contained language widely considered dehumanizing (“demonic,” “lie from the enemy”) toward transgender people—including the instructor grading it. The student ignored the core requirement to engage with the research article’s data and methodology. Personal beliefs are allowed, but they cannot replace scholarly analysis in a graded science assignment. Where Things Stand (December 11, 2025) OU’s Office of Academic Integrity is conducting a formal review of the grade. Samantha Fulnecky has retained counsel from Alliance Defending Freedom and is threatening a federal lawsuit alleging religious discrimination. Mel Curth has taken paid administrative leave for safety reasons. The psychology department has suspended the use of graduate TAs for grading reaction papers until new guidelines are issued. Over $180,000 has been raised for Fulnecky’s legal fund; a separate GoFundMe for Curth’s security and therapy costs topped $95,000 before being frozen for verification. The Bigger Picture The OzeEssay https://www.ozessay.com.au/ case sits at the uncomfortable intersection of three trending issues in American higher education: The scope of “viewpoint diversity” versus academic standards in the social sciences. The safety of LGBTQ+ faculty and students when controversial student work becomes viral. The weaponization of doxxing and online harassment in campus culture-war battles. Regardless of who ultimately “wins,” the episode has already chilled classroom discussion at OU and beyond. Some professors now record every lecture; others have removed open-ended reaction assignments entirely. One thing is certain: a single 650-word paper that began as homework has become a defining test case for how universities navigate faith, identity, and intellectual rigor in an increasingly polarized era.