University of Oklahoma Fires Two Instructors After Christian Student Discrimination and Protest Viewpoint Bias

The University of Oklahoma has removed two instructors from their classrooms in what has become a cascading scandal involving religious discrimination, viewpoint bias, and campus protest double standards that conservative advocates say exemplifies the hostile environment facing right-leaning students at American universities.

The controversy began when teaching assistant William "Mel" Curth, who uses she/they pronouns, gave Christian student Samantha Fulnecky a zero out of 25 on an essay assignment where she cited the Bible and called modern gender ideology "demonic and severely harmful to American youth."

But the situation escalated dramatically when a second instructor, assistant teaching professor Kelli Alvarez, allegedly offered excused absences to students who wished to protest in support of Curth's reinstatement while initially denying the same accommodation to students planning to counter-protest—a double standard the university characterized as unacceptable viewpoint discrimination.

Both instructors are now on administrative leave pending investigations, with the University of Oklahoma issuing statements emphasizing that classrooms "exist to teach students how to think, not what to think" and that viewpoint-based preferential treatment violates fundamental principles of academic freedom.

The Original Essay: 'Demonic and Severely Harmful'

The initial incident occurred in late November in a lifespan development class at OU. Fulnecky, a junior, was assigned to read a scholarly paper summarizing research on gender norms among middle schoolers and write a response essay.

The assignment, worth 25 points, provided a grading rubric with three criteria:

• 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)
• Is the paper clearly written? (5 points)

Notably, the rubric did not require empirical evidence, scholarly citations, or any particular viewpoint—only that students engage thoughtfully with the article and clearly express their reactions.

Fulnecky responded by supporting traditional gender norms and citing her Christian faith. Her essay stated that God created men and women as distinct, that gender norms should not be dismissed as mere stereotypes, and that contemporary efforts to promote multiple genders and fluid identities are harmful to children.

"Society [is] pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth," Fulnecky wrote. "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 Zero Grade and Scathing Response

Curth gave Fulnecky a zero—not a C or D for disagreement with the argument, but complete failure despite the essay meeting the rubric's stated requirements.

The teaching assistant's written response was lengthy and pointed:

"Please note that I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs, but instead I am deducting point [sic] for you posting a reaction paper that does not answer the questions for this assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive," Curth wrote.

The TA then lectured Fulnecky on gender ideology: "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."

Critics immediately noted several problems with Curth's grading:

Rubric Violation: The grading criteria never mentioned empirical evidence as a requirement. Fulnecky was asked for her reaction and opinion, which she provided.

Viewpoint Discrimination: Curth's statement that the essay was "at times offensive" suggested the zero grade stemmed from disagreement with Fulnecky's Christian perspective rather than academic deficiencies.

Contradiction: Curth claimed not to be deducting points for Fulnecky's beliefs while simultaneously criticizing those beliefs as the basis for the failing grade.

Academic Overreach: A teaching assistant was essentially telling a student that her religious views were factually wrong and that she must adopt the TA's preferred ideology on gender to pass the assignment.

"I was asked to read an article and give my opinion on the article," Fulnecky told Fox News Digital. "So I did this assignment the same as I would any other in that class, gave my opinion on gender binary and gender stereotypes and that, naturally my views are from the Bible and my Christian kind of worldview. And so that's what I wrote about and I didn't think anything of it."

She said she was "shocked" by the zero grade and believed it was "punitive."

University Response: TA Removed

As Fulnecky's story spread through conservative media and campus advocacy groups, the University of Oklahoma faced mounting pressure to address the apparent religious discrimination.

Last week, the university confirmed that Curth had been removed from the classroom, though it initially provided few details about the decision or whether further disciplinary action would follow.

The removal of a teaching assistant for grading decisions is relatively rare in higher education, suggesting university administrators concluded Curth's actions represented serious violations of academic freedom and student rights.

Conservative groups celebrated the decision as vindication that the zero grade was indeed discriminatory, though some questioned why it took media attention and external pressure for the university to act rather than addressing the issue immediately when Fulnecky complained.

The Protest and the Double Standard

The controversy might have ended there, but a second incident involving another instructor transformed a single grading dispute into a broader case study of viewpoint discrimination at OU.

Following Curth's removal from the classroom, some students organized a protest advocating for the teaching assistant's reinstatement. The demonstration was scheduled during class time, and some students wanted to attend rather than go to their classes.

This is where assistant teaching professor Kelli Alvarez allegedly created a double standard that the university would ultimately characterize as unacceptable viewpoint discrimination.

According to Turning Point USA's Oklahoma chapter president Kalib Magana and Republican State Senator Shane David Jett, Alvarez—who taught Magana's English Composition II class—offered excused absences to students who wished to attend the pro-Curth protest.

However, when Magana requested an excused absence to attend a counter-protest opposing Curth's reinstatement, Alvarez allegedly denied his request unless he could organize a "documented group" of counter-protesters and provide confirmation that others would attend.

"Kalib should not be marked absent for showing up as a counter-protester while those in favor are excused," Turning Point USA posted on social media. "That is discriminatory."

The group elaborated: "The professor expected Kalib to organize an entire counter-protest with people confirming they would attend, instead of allowing him to show up on his own like everyone else. His freedom of speech and his ability to receive an excused absence were made dependent on others agreeing to participate in his counter-protest and share his beliefs. This is incredibly anti-free speech and discriminatory toward an opposing viewpoint."

The allegation suggested Alvarez was willing to facilitate student participation in protests supporting progressive causes (reinstating a TA who penalized Christian views) while imposing additional burdens on students wishing to express conservative viewpoints (opposing that reinstatement).

Swift Second Removal

The University of Oklahoma responded swiftly and definitively once the second allegation emerged.

On Friday evening, the university posted a statement on social media confirming the viewpoint discrimination claim and announcing immediate action:

"On Wednesday, a lecturer allegedly demonstrated viewpoint discrimination by excusing students who intended to miss class to attend a protest on campus, but not extending the same benefit to students who intended to miss class to express a counter-viewpoint," the statement read.

A director "immediately responded" and told students in class and by email that "the lecturer's actions were inappropriate and wrong, and that the university classroom exists to teach students how to think, not what to think."

The director announced that "any student, regardless of viewpoint, would be excused if absent from class today to attend the protest without penalty, and that the lecturer had been replaced, effective immediately, for the remainder of the semester."

The university emphasized it "unequivocally supports" the director's decision to remove Alvarez from teaching.

Alvarez was also placed on administrative leave pending further investigation—the second instructor removed in connection with what began as a single essay grading dispute.

The Broader Statement on Academic Freedom

The university's statements about both removals emphasized core principles of academic freedom and viewpoint neutrality:

"Classroom instructors have a special obligation to ensure that the classroom is never used to grant preferential treatment based on personal political beliefs, nor to pressure students to adopt particular political or ideological views," the school stated.

The language was significant. Universities often defend faculty members' right to express controversial views or make controversial grading decisions under academic freedom principles. But OU's statement emphasized that academic freedom also includes obligations—particularly the obligation not to use classroom authority to discriminate based on students' political or religious viewpoints.

The university declined to provide additional details about the investigations, citing personnel matters. Alvarez did not respond to requests for comment from Fox News Digital.

Conservative Reaction: Vindication and Warning

Conservative student groups and media figures portrayed the dual removals as vindication that campus discrimination against right-leaning students is real and systemic, though they noted it typically takes external pressure to force accountability.

"This shows what many conservative students experience every day," one Turning Point USA representative said. "You get penalized for your beliefs, and then when you try to speak out, you face additional discrimination. We're glad OU ultimately did the right thing, but students shouldn't have to go viral on social media to get fair treatment."

Republican State Senator Shane Jett, who publicly identified Alvarez and called for accountability, framed the incident as part of a broader pattern in higher education.

The Oklahoma College Republicans praised the university's decisive action while noting the incident revealed deeper problems: "Two instructors had to be removed in the same scandal. How many more are out there discriminating against conservative students without getting caught?"

The Academic Freedom Debate

The OU incidents have reignited debates about academic freedom, viewpoint diversity, and the boundaries of acceptable instructor behavior in politically charged times.

From the Conservative Perspective: The incidents exemplify systemic bias in higher education, where progressive ideology is promoted and enforced while conservative and religious perspectives face penalties. Students with traditional Christian beliefs face hostility from instructors who use grading power to punish dissent. Curth's zero grade for a biblical essay and Alvarez's protest double standard represent the tip of an iceberg—most discrimination goes unreported because students fear retaliation.

From the Progressive Perspective: (Though neither removed instructor provided public statements, progressive faculty members at other institutions have argued similar cases differently.) Academic standards require evidence-based reasoning. Personal religious beliefs shouldn't override scientific consensus in academic settings. Gender identity is medically recognized; students can't simply dismiss established science with religious assertions. However, even progressive defenders of academic rigor generally acknowledge that if the rubric didn't require empirical evidence, Fulnecky shouldn't have been penalized for not providing it.

The Institutional Balance: Universities face an impossible balancing act. They must protect academic freedom for faculty to teach according to their expertise and conscience. But they also must protect students from viewpoint discrimination and ensure fair, rubric-based grading. When instructors use classroom authority to penalize students for political or religious views—as OU concluded both Curth and Alvarez did—they've crossed from academic freedom into abuse of power.

Looking Ahead: Investigations and Implications

Both Curth and Alvarez remain on administrative leave while investigations continue. Possible outcomes range from formal reprimands to termination, depending on what investigators determine about intent, previous conduct, and policy violations.

For Fulnecky, the university reportedly changed her zero grade after reviewing the situation, though she told media the experience left her questioning whether conservative students can succeed at OU without hiding their beliefs.

"I would just really encourage everyone to stand up for your beliefs and push back when they're being questioned and push back when you feel that your voice is trying to be silenced," Fulnecky said, encouraging other students facing similar situations to speak up.

The broader question is whether OU's decisive action represents an outlier or a trend. Will other universities take similar stands against viewpoint discrimination, or was OU's response driven primarily by the incidents' high media profile and political pressure from conservative state legislators?

For now, the University of Oklahoma has sent a clear message: instructors who use classroom authority to discriminate based on students' political or religious viewpoints will face consequences. Whether that message resonates beyond Norman, Oklahoma, remains to be seen.

As one student affairs administrator at another institution noted: "OU did what they had to do when the evidence was clear. The challenge is addressing the thousands of smaller instances of viewpoint bias that never make headlines but create hostile environments for students every day."

Originally published on University Herald