University of Oklahoma Paper Controversy

[NotJoeBiden]

I don’t think calling trans people demonic and citing the bible as evidence is a thoughtful reflection of a paper on adolescent gender development.

you are wrong

a reaction by definition is based on personal feelings -- those feelings could come from the bible, the Quran, the teachings of the buddha, from the philosophy of the old Kung Fu tv series, from teachings of atheist parents, from Mr Rogers, from Homey D. Clown, from an influential 4th grade teacher, from your experience in the military ... or from anywhere else 

just because you put no credence in the bible doesn't mean other people don't 

perhaps she has read the bible from cover to cover                    
perhaps she had read a few bible commentaries                 
perhaps she has put a lot of thought into the bible's teachings over the years                 

one thing is for sure, the professor wouldn't have failed a conservative muslim student who wrote the same paper and cited the Quran as evidence 

no way the school would want to be accused of being anti-muslim

---

You haven't included the link or the terribly written essay (C.S. Lewis, GK Chesterton, or even Karen Kingsbury this student is not), but having read about this, the graders were very clear that the grade was *not* based on the person's religious beliefs or the offensiveness of their statements, but rather for an infantile (unclear) writing style, poor argumentation (not thoughtful), and failure to engage with the article (unclear tie-in). One grader expressed disagreement with what the student said and stated they found it offensive, but clearly stated the grade was *not* based on either of those things, and also clearly stated what the grade *was* based on. Other graders checked the grade and agreed with it.

In summary (my comments in bold):

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) No.
2. Does the paper present a thoughtful reaction or response to the article, rather than a summary? (10 points) No. 
3. Is the paper clearly written? (5 points) No.

How your can look at the assignment instructions and the essay and conclude that the essay met the assignment requirements is beyond me. Your explanation of your judgment is not based in the particulars and therefore feels like an argument to support a predetermined conclusion, whether that's the case or not.

As an aside, it's evident from the student's subsequent behavior that she was looking for a way to get her trans TA in trouble and/or fired while also getting to play the victim and become an ideological grifter like so many who have gone before her. There are plenty of clear cases of religious discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

As another aside: Mods, does this post belong in Off-Topic? I know that other threads that are related to education, but not to educational pursuits or to schools with their own subforums, have gone there (e.g. the recent discussion about teacher qualifications in the U.S., etc.)

did you even read the assignment ?

Possible approaches to reaction papers include: 
1. A discussion of why you feel the topic is important and worthy of study (or not)

that is EXACTLY what her paper was 

>  but rather for an infantile (unclear) writing style, poor argumentation (not thoughtful), and failure to engage with the article (unclear tie-in).

everything you said here is incorrect                 
her writing was very clear, her arguements were fine and thoughtful (based on her religious beliefs), she enganed with the article completely and said it is WRONG and gave her reasons                  
you can disagree with those reasons, but she was thoughtful and gave reasons from the bible                
you may not think the bible is a credible source -- who cares ?                  
no source or citations were required 

> it's evident from the student's subsequent behavior that she was looking for a way to get her trans TA in trouble and/or fired while also getting to play the victim and become an ideological grifter 

ah, add mind reader to your signature 

> How your can look at the assignment instructions and the essay and conclude that the essay met the assignment requirements is beyond me.

because I actually read the assignment

Well for starters, the bible doesn’t say what she is attributing to it.

[LevelUP]

As another aside: Mods, does this post belong in Off-Topic? I know that other threads that are related to education, but not to educational pursuits or to schools with their own subforums, have gone there (e.g. the recent discussion about teacher qualifications in the U.S., etc.)

Agreed. Since this discussion centers on political and ideological topics rather than general education topics, it belongs in Off-Topic. Thread moved.

[slaterjack]

We can not allow people to victimize themselves when their bullshit is called out after answering "because god did it" to a serious question in a classroom.

[Hotdogman1]

From the article: "Specifically, the current study will examine
(1) whether typical characteristics are associated with being popular,
(2) whether atypical characteristics are associated with rejection/teasing,
(3) whether the degree of typicality is associated with the degree of popularity, and
(4) whether teasing due to gender atypicality explains the link between low levels of typicality and more negative mental health."

The student mentions the article three times in her 2 page essay (4 paragraphs). 

• Paragraph 1: "The article discussed peers using teasing as a way to enforce gender norms" then went on to discuss God’s intentions for our gender roles.
  

While the article does examine teasing, it does not present it as a mechanism for enforcing gender norms: “The current study explores whether being low in gender typicality predicts being teased because of that atypicality, and whether this gender-based teasing in turn predicts more negative mental health outcomes.”
I don’t see a clear connection between teasing related to popularity and gender atypicality, and God’s intended design for gender roles.

• Paragraph 2: “eliminating gender in our society would be detrimental, as it pulls us farther from God’s original plan for humans.” then goes on about the freedom of speech and expands on gender roles.
  

….umm, the article never mentions anything about eliminating gender.

• Paragraph 3: "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 think they misread this point: "This supports the peer popularity literature that has consistently shown that being popular is not synonymous with being well liked or having positive traits. Rather, gender typicality was associated with social status and prestige among peers. Considering the importance placed on popularity by early adolescents, it is likely that children feel, at least implicitly, pressure from their peers to be gender typical to gain or maintain social status." I dunno where the 'society pushing the lie' comes from.

• Paragraph 4: basically the conclusion and prayer.
  

Basically, the assignment article was a 21 page study and the student submitted a 2 page bible study report.

[wow]

Bluebooger, I don't know what I did to you to make you so hostile to me lately. This is the second instance in a short span of time where your expressions of disagreement with me have veered into the uncivil. If that is because you perceived my original response as mocking or derisive, then I am sorry, because that was not my intent. i honestly do not understand how someone can read that essay and think it meets the rubric requirements. Knaves has since clarified they don't think it meets the rubric requirements, so that answered my question as far as the original post goes.

I'm not going to respond to the specifics of what you said because I don't trust it will lead to an increase in civility. I always liked your username. It's nice when we can interact about improving ourselves through education.

[sanantone]

I don’t think calling trans people demonic and citing the bible as evidence is a thoughtful reflection of a paper on adolescent gender development.

you are wrong

a reaction by definition is based on personal feelings -- those feelings could come from the bible, the Quran, the teachings of the buddha, from the philosophy of the old Kung Fu tv series, from teachings of atheist parents, from Mr Rogers, from Homey D. Clown, from an influential 4th grade teacher, from your experience in the military ... or from anywhere else 

just because you put no credence in the bible doesn't mean other people don't 

perhaps she has read the bible from cover to cover                    
perhaps she had read a few bible commentaries                 
perhaps she has put a lot of thought into the bible's teachings over the years                 

one thing is for sure, the professor wouldn't have failed a conservative muslim student who wrote the same paper and cited the Quran as evidence 

no way the school would want to be accused of being anti-muslim

---

You haven't included the link or the terribly written essay (C.S. Lewis, GK Chesterton, or even Karen Kingsbury this student is not), but having read about this, the graders were very clear that the grade was *not* based on the person's religious beliefs or the offensiveness of their statements, but rather for an infantile (unclear) writing style, poor argumentation (not thoughtful), and failure to engage with the article (unclear tie-in). One grader expressed disagreement with what the student said and stated they found it offensive, but clearly stated the grade was *not* based on either of those things, and also clearly stated what the grade *was* based on. Other graders checked the grade and agreed with it.

In summary (my comments in bold):

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) No.
2. Does the paper present a thoughtful reaction or response to the article, rather than a summary? (10 points) No. 
3. Is the paper clearly written? (5 points) No.

How your can look at the assignment instructions and the essay and conclude that the essay met the assignment requirements is beyond me. Your explanation of your judgment is not based in the particulars and therefore feels like an argument to support a predetermined conclusion, whether that's the case or not.

As an aside, it's evident from the student's subsequent behavior that she was looking for a way to get her trans TA in trouble and/or fired while also getting to play the victim and become an ideological grifter like so many who have gone before her. There are plenty of clear cases of religious discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

As another aside: Mods, does this post belong in Off-Topic? I know that other threads that are related to education, but not to educational pursuits or to schools with their own subforums, have gone there (e.g. the recent discussion about teacher qualifications in the U.S., etc.)

did you even read the assignment ?

Possible approaches to reaction papers include: 
1. A discussion of why you feel the topic is important and worthy of study (or not)

that is EXACTLY what her paper was 

>  but rather for an infantile (unclear) writing style, poor argumentation (not thoughtful), and failure to engage with the article (unclear tie-in).

everything you said here is incorrect                 
her writing was very clear, her arguements were fine and thoughtful (based on her religious beliefs), she enganed with the article completely and said it is WRONG and gave her reasons                  
you can disagree with those reasons, but she was thoughtful and gave reasons from the bible                
you may not think the bible is a credible source -- who cares ?                  
no source or citations were required 

> it's evident from the student's subsequent behavior that she was looking for a way to get her trans TA in trouble and/or fired while also getting to play the victim and become an ideological grifter 

ah, add mind reader to your signature 

> How your can look at the assignment instructions and the essay and conclude that the essay met the assignment requirements is beyond me.

because I actually read the assignment

A University of Oklahoma Republican group agreed that her essay was horrible, and it was clear that she didn't read the article. The student literally stated that she skimmed the article and rushed the writing of her essay so that she could go to a musical.

[Jonathan Whatley]

Possible approaches to reaction papers include: 
1. A discussion of why you feel the topic is important and worthy of study (or not)

that is EXACTLY what her paper was […]

she enganed with the article completely and said it is WRONG and gave her reasons            

She engaged almost entirely with the general concept of gender typicality, and almost none with the relationships and findings described in the article itself.

---

> it's evident from the student's subsequent behavior that she was looking for a way to get her trans TA in trouble and/or fired while also getting to play the victim and become an ideological grifter 

ah, add mind reader to your signature 

Though we can’t know the student’s intentions, wow is not the only person to see a pattern in public information pointing this way. Parker Molloy, a trans media critic, writes

The discrimination complaint, the media tour, the outrage — it’s all in service of the goal stated plainly in the posts [Samantha Fulnecky’s mother] Kristi Fulnecky is boosting: trans people should not be allowed to work in education.

Chloe Cole, a detransitioner who’s built a lucrative career as an anti-trans activist, demanded the university be defunded until Curth is fired. TPUSA’s post about the incident included the line: “We should not be letting mentally ill professors around students.”

The playbook here is familiar. Find a trans person in a position of minor institutional authority. Manufacture or amplify a confrontation. Blast it through the conservative media ecosystem until it becomes national news. Watch as institutions capitulate.

Same Script, Different Target: A trans instructor in Oklahoma gave a bad essay the grade it deserved. What happened next follows a formula the right has perfected (Parker Molloy, The Present Age [Substack], December 5, 2025)