A student by the name of Samantha Fulnecky made the news recently for receiving a failing grade after submitting a faith-based essay in a psychology class, supposedly getting “discriminated against” due to her faith and opinions.
I’ve read the essay in question and just wanted to talk about the situation and about why the discourse bothers me so much. I want to take this opportunity to not just talk about how scientific papers work and why I believe that the grade is justified, but also about what this says about the OU’s message they want to send to all of their students.
Why did Samantha get a failing grade?
In a psychology class, Samantha was supposed to complete an assignment1 asking students to submit a 650-word response to a scholarly article about gender expectations in society.
The reaction papers in question were to be graded on a 25-point scale:
- 10 points for showing a tie-in to the assigned article
- 10 points for showing a thoughtful reaction/response to the article
- 5 points being awarded for clarity
The assignment also stated that ten points would be deducted for word counts of 620 and 649.
Word counts exist to set a clear scope and standardise evaluation by setting a requirement for a certain level of detail. I can deliberate more on this in the footnotes2.
Setting aside personal biases, let’s talk about the issues with the essay Samantha submitted.
Minimal Engagement with the Assigned Article
When an academic paper is supposed to respond to another article, you’re required to name the article, author, summarise the article & arguments accurately, and then engage with its evidence or methodology. You are very much allowed – if not even encouraged – to disagree with the article, but it’s the “how” that matters.
Samantha’s essay doesn’t do any of this. She only references the article that she’s supposed to “respond to” in two sentences at the beginning and once again near the end. There is no mention of the name of the article, nor of the author. It’s a formality, most people would think, but it’s also a great way to fill out that word count requirement that Samantha failed to meet.
Hence, it very much misses the mark, therefore making it ineligible for any points. At that point, the essay fails to meet the minimum criteria for evaluation, so most lecturers wouldn’t be able to make it pass, even if they agreed with what Samantha was saying.
No Academic Sources
In scholarly essays, one needs to provide sources for the claims and quotes one makes. A lot of reporters claim that Samantha “cited the Bible” or “quoted the Bible”. However, that’s not correct, as she fails to quote anything from it or to cite any verses. Instead, she argues based on her own personal belief system, which is irrelevant in the context of her psychology major.
Her essay treats scripture as authoritative evidence.
It’s not being framed as a personal belief system, nor is it contrasted with empirical research, which would be valid ways of utilising the Bible in theory (ignoring the fact that it’s irrelevant to the subject). Instead, Samantha just makes various claims without actually quoting from it.
Samantha violates the basic expectations of evidence-based reasoning, disciplinary relevance3, and source transparency expected of academic writing4.
When one uses the Bible (or other scriptures/religious texts), one must always quote the exact passage one is referencing5. You also have to specify the version or translation you’re using since the translations6 can vary significantly, and academic readers need to know which one you’re using.
On top of that, you also have to provide context, explaining why the passage supports your points, and showing how it interacts with your argument. Simply saying “the Bible says this, so it must be true” is not sufficient whatsoever in a university-level essay… especially in a psychology course.
Samantha also makes claims about a Hebrew word, but she romanises it, displaying its supposed pronunciation and spelling in Latin letters rather than in Hebrew, which can make it harder to fact-check her essay. She provides exactly one translation for it. This is problematic since you cannot simply translate classical Hebrew into English in one singular way.
Translation entails interpretation7.
Providing only the translation that works with your argument feels like cherry-picking, especially if you don’t also provide a source for said translation or the actual word in Hebrew8.
No Actual Analysis
Samantha’s essay is filled with rhetorical and ideological language instead of analysis.
A lot of these instances hurt the tone of the essay and make it seem like less of a scholarly article and more of an opinion piece on some random blog (hey, like this one!).
In a university context, you’d typically receive major deductions for calling others “cowardly and insincere” while also saying things like “society pushing the lie […] is demonic” and “I will not let them take away my freedom of speech” (as a rhetorical posture, not an argument).
The last thing about her freedom of speech was unprompted at the time of her writing that essay… and then it was borderline prophetic considering the aftermath.
Anyhow, the language Samantha uses in her academic essay attacks unnamed peers, frames disagreement as moral failure, and substitutes assertions for reasoning. Even if the conclusion were acceptable, the tone alone would violate standard academic conduct guidelines and, as such, result in major deductions in the final grade.
The TA who graded the paper called it “offensive.” Samantha claimed after the fact that she didn’t mean for “demonic” to be offensive. But there’s no way in which calling others “demonic”, “insincere” or “cowardly” isn’t offensive at all.
Internal Contradictions and Overgeneralization
The essay Samantha wrote features a lot of logical errors, such as contradictions and overgeneralization.
She simultaneously claims that gender norms are not enforced by pressure while also stating that “teasing” to enforce gender norms is not a problem. She also claims that she doesn’t see “teasing” as a problem, but then says that it’s “bad” later.
Fulnecky oversimplifies the key claims, reducing them simply to “girls want to feel womanly”, and fails to accurately depict what the article is about, what the study was looking into, and what findings there were.
It’s a study about whether being high in gender is typically associated with popularity, whether being low in gender typicality is associated with rejection/teasing, and whether teasing due to low gender typicality mediates the association with negative mental health.
The study finds that low gender typicality predicted more negative mental health outcomes for boys, and there are suggestions of bad mental health stemming from social repercussions of being low in gender typicality rather than a direct result of low gender typicality.
Samantha doesn’t comment on the way the article was conducted (methodology) or the findings in any significant way. Instead, she just claims that it’s “thought-provoking” (without listing how and why) and then goes on to just not engage with it.
Form
Honestly, this essay is not on the level of a university-level essay.
There are standards in place for a reason, but Samantha seems to be very “free-spirited” in terms of her application of grammatical rules. Her capitalisations are off. She once states, “bullying is bad […] however”, which is… rough.
Some sentences are also just plain ungrammatical. It happens to the best of us, but most folks would read their essay out loud before submitting it to prevent these kinds of errors.
These are the kinds of errors that are routinely flagged in undergraduate grading.
The Contents
I don’t think the contents of the paper or Samantha’s belief matter all that much given the bigger aforementioned concerns with the essay itself but I figured it would be worth noting how Samantha presents herself as an authority on biblical gender roles despite of her argument relying on undefined terms and unsupported assertions.
She repeatedly claims that women are designed by God to behave in “motherly” or “womanly” ways, but she never explains what those terms actually mean. The essay contains no definitions, no studies, and no textual citations to clarify or support these, which severely undermines her argument.
This lack of any definitions becomes incredibly problematic when viewed cross-culturally and historically. Across humanity’s history, women have occupied vastly different social roles depending on time and place. For instance, among the Scythians, women participated in warfare. In other societies, including the Amish, modesty and covering the body have been treated as core feminine virtues. These norms all have been framed as “proper” or “natural” womanhood within their respective cultures, and yet they differ so vastly.
If “womanly” behaviour is divinely designed and fixed, it becomes unclear why its content varies so dramatically across cultures. Either these terms are culturally contingent, or God’s supposed design changes depending on geography and era. The essay doesn’t address this whatsoever, nor does it attempt to explain why one cultural model of femininity should be treated as authoritative over others.
Broadly speaking, Samantha treats the idea of innate gender design as obvious without any evidence supporting her hypothesis.
Her theological reasoning relies on selective biblical literalism: Scripture is treated as authoritative when it supports her conclusions and ignored when it does not. It is totally fine to be selective about what you personally believe in (or in what you don’t). That said, presenting oneself as an authority while selectively applying religious texts is not that.
Samantha doesn’t criticise the parts she omits. She just broadly uses the Bible for her belief system and cherry-picks the examples she needs, but ignores all the parts that don’t help her.
The essay uses Genesis as a framework for modern gender norms while disregarding other prescriptions from the same biblical tradition that most Christians nowadays routinely ignore, such as prohibitions on mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19).
On top of that, her idea that men and women are equal is solely based on this one mistranslation of that one verse in Genesis, but not the many, many examples of men being treated differently from women in the Bible.
Samantha instrumentalises her faith in the essay to shield herself from critique. In the aftermath, she weaponised her faith to attack her critics. Her faith is a tool for her to use as she pleases, which I find very disrespectful to said faith.
All in all, though, the actual contents don’t matter since the whole essay is flawed in much bigger ways. In the aftermath of her failure, she framed the discussion in interviews as a “culture war” issue rather than an issue with the quality of her work.
The fact of the matter is, though, that she would have gotten a failing grade even if she had written the opposite of her opinions since her work just didn’t meet the standards required of her and since she didn’t do the assignment as was asked of her.
The Scientific Consensus
Arguing based on faith can be done, but I find it incredibly difficult, especially when one argues against the scientific consensus. Religious freedom and freedom of opinion are great and all, but in a scientific context, you need to make use of empirical research and actually prove your arguments and statements. Simply calling the scientific consensus “demonic” is weak.
The study Samantha was supposed to respond to found that gender atypicality resulted in kids being teased more, which in turn results in negative mental health outcomes not due to the gender atypicality but rather due to the social repercussions of gender atypicality. It has other findings, too, but as a broad summary, this should be sufficient.
Samantha should have omitted her personal world view and instead focused on showing studies (empirical research) that support her claim on there being a biological factor in the stereotypes and not just a social one.
However, from Saudino, K.J. (2005)9, Martin et al. (2002)10, and Gelman et al. (2002)11 to various other researchers, studies have shown that gender behaviours, expectations and norms are heavily influenced by peer socialisation and culture, rather than biology.
Samantha wrote the idea of “multiple genders” off as a lie and morally harmful. She described others who accept or affirm multiple genders as “cowardly and insincere”. She treated gender diversity as inherently contrary to biology and religion, rather than as a legitimate area of social and psychological research.
The scientific consensus in psychology, sociology, and gender studies is that gender is distinct from biological sex, with biological sex referring to chromosomal, hormonal and anatomical traits (male, female, intersex) and gender referring to a socially and personally constructed identity that includes roles, behaviours, and self-concept.
The recognition of non-binary and gender-diverse identities is based on sociological studies, psychological research and cross-cultural anthropology. It’s descriptive not prescriptive. Samantha’s essay calls it a “lie” and “demonic” rather than actually proving that it is a lie and/or demonic.
Freedom of Faith/Speech
The OU’s official statement claims that they want to “teach how to think, not what to think”, but in this specific case, they’re failing to do exactly that.
I believe grades exist to provide students with extrinsic motivation (good grades = good job chances) and to measure the quality of their performance (good grades = good work). If you put in the work, you’ll be rewarded.
That being the case, Samantha performed poorly and received a failing grade. She was supposed to think critically and engage with a scientific paper based on academic guidelines. Since she didn’t do that, she failed the assignment. She also got -10 points for being 20 words short, as listed in the assignment.
She claims that it didn’t mention that she has to use citations or empirical evidence in her assignment, which is true, I guess, but she also managed to breathe even though it wasn’t listed in the assignment12.
The failing grade didn’t teach Samantha “what to think” but rather showed that the “how” didn’t work out. Getting it amended means that other students who got a passing grade that isn’t great get actively punished for not also running to the press about it. It’s a bad precedent.
On top of that, Samantha got a “Citation of Recognition” from the Oklahoma House of Representatives because she spoke out about the grading dispute, getting praised because she was “speaking from a foundation of truth” – but other students who face discrimination and report it don’t get that same recognition.
This situation sets a bad precedent. The poor handling of this matter might poison the well for other religious students but it also reflects poorly on Oklahoma’s education system which already is performing badly in most rankings.
At last, I do believe that this case shows very clearly what kind of message they’re trying to send at the University of Oklahoma: “If you’re loud enough, academic standards stop mattering. Might is right.”
Conclusion
Being a student myself, I get not wanting to receive a bad grade but if you fail a course over here, you can often retake it (sometimes even unlimited times). The issue is that when you pass a course but get a bad grade, that grade is permanent, which means that I very obviously have to do my utmost to ensure I get the best grade I can achieve in every exam and assignment.
Hearing about a case across the great pond, where a student fails an assignment due to doing a poor job and then not having to live with the consequences of that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Should one assignment (and a small one like a 650-word essay, at that) matter that much for her final grade? No, I don’t think that’s good.
That said, if it does matter that much, you should have to put in the work, study diligently, and then apply what you’ve learned in the essay you’re submitting. If you don’t do that, live with the consequences. Don’t run to the press about it, get a TA fired, and use whatever means you can to twist the narrative in your favour. If I could get a grade restored through means like that, I’d rather quit. It’s corrupt.
I feel bad for the other students who put in the work and who effectively got punished for doing well. They sacrificed time and effort to get a good grade, and in the end, their work might be worth less compared to Samantha’s.
- Here’s an article that details the rubric of the assignment. I previously had access to the actual thing but I can’t seem to find it in my sources anymore. Luckily, this article documented the assignment’s rubric completely. If I can find the original, I’ll link to that instead in post. ↩︎
- Word counts prevent students from going overboard or excessively padding their essays. At my English lectures at university, we typically have a word count requirement of around 2000 for the essays we submit at the end of the year. There’s a permittable margin of 10% there, meaning you can submit anything between 2000 and 2200 words and it would still be graded. Falling below that word count gets you a deduction in points. Similarly, the lecturer will read the full essay in question but they won’t grade anything beyond the 2200 words. This ensures a level of fairness and also lets students develop their methodology as well as their focus. If all students submitted whole books for their assignments, grading would take ages and become a burden for the lecturers, too, so some lecturers might not even read anything beyond the word count’s margin. If your conclusion falls outside of the word limit, that’d be a deduction of points. ↩︎
- Here’s some info on what relevance means ↩︎
- Scientific Integrity and Transparency in Academic Writing: The Foundation of Credible Science, taken from the National Library of Medicine’s website. Samantha doesn’t study medicine, of course, but the expectation of scientific integrity and transparency in her writing is the same. ↩︎
- I decided to put the example here since it’s kinda big. This is how I have been quoting from the Bible in some of the theology classes I’ve been taking this semester: “Genesis 2:18 (NIV): “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.'” ↩︎
- NIV, KJV, ESV, etc. are different versions of the Bible that came out over time. There are a lot of versions of the Bible and some of them still reference “unicorns”, for instance, while others translate the word mistaken for “unicorn” as “wild ox” instead. ↩︎
- Some translations (like KJV, NASB) aim for “formal equivalence” (word-for-word), while others (NIV, NLT) use “dynamic equivalence” (thought-for-thought) for clarity, catering to in-depth study. All translations are an interpretation, especially with old Hebrew, which features many idioms that can’t exactly be captured with modern languages. Older manuscripts, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, have also improved our knowledge, making older translations (like the KJV) less accurate in some areas. As we learn more about a language and culture, we also come closer to a more accurate translation, which is why providing sources for translations and utilising multiple translations is so very important when you’re referencing scripture. ↩︎
- Given her line of argument, I assume she was referencing Genesis 2:18, where God says He will make for Adam “ezer kenegdo”. The actual word is עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ. I highly recommend watching this video here from this timestamp (or in whole). There’s also a cat in there. ↩︎
- Link to Saudino ↩︎
- Link to Martin et al ↩︎
- Link to Gelman ↩︎
- Whenever my lecturers get challenged on their grades because “it didn’t say we have to use quotes and citations”, they reply that students also remembered to breathe even though it didn’t say so anywhere. It seems to be a pretty common joke. It can also be found in the video referenced in the 8th footnote. I sadly don’t know where it originates from. ↩︎
This post was originally written by Dan Dicere from Indiecator.
If you see this article anywhere other than Indiecator.org then this article has been scraped. Please let me know about this via E-Mail.
Indiecator 
Leave a comment