When a student submits an academic essay, they expect their work to be evaluated by a rubric—not by the ideological sensitivities of the person holding the red pen. Yet at the University of Oklahoma, that basic expectation collapsed spectacularly. What should have been a routine psychology assignment spiraled into a national culture war, administrative intervention, and the suspension of a graduate instructor now known publicly as Mel Curth.

This is the story of how one instructor’s personal bias, poor judgment, and unprofessionalism became the real source of immorality in the classroom—not the student’s religious beliefs.

And it’s a case study in how fragile academic freedom has become when instructors cannot separate grading from identity politics.

---

A Student, an Essay, and a Zero That Lit the Internet on Fire

The student at the center of the controversy is Samantha Fulnecky, a psychology major at the University of Oklahoma.
Her assignment?
A reflection on a research article about gender stereotypes in middle school students and how those stereotypes shape mental health.

The task required three things:

• Demonstrate understanding of the article
• Give a clear reaction
• Organize ideas into coherent discussion

It did not require empirical citations.
It did not ban personal belief systems.
And it certainly did not forbid a religious framework.

Samantha did what reaction assignments often invite:
She interpreted the topic through her worldview, which is rooted in Christianity.

Her argument was simple, if controversial:

• God created men and women with intentional distinctions.
• Gender stereotypes do not bother her because they align with how she believes God designed humanity.
• She believes society’s promotion of “multiple genders” contradicts Biblical teaching.
• She considers that cultural push “demonic” in the religious sense—not as a personal insult.

Whether one agrees with her or not is irrelevant.
This was an opinion piece.
A reaction assignment.
And most importantly—an academic submission that followed the rubric.

Yet Samantha received:

0/25. A total failure.

---

Enter: Instructor Mel Curth – Bias in Grading, Disguised as “Standards”

According to screenshots circulated by Turning Point USA’s OU chapter and repeated by multiple media outlets, the instructor—Mel Curth, a graduate student who identifies as transgender—claimed:

• The essay relied on “personal ideology” instead of empirical evidence.
• Parts were “offensive.”
• It did not properly address the prompt.

But there’s a problem:

✔ The assignment did not require empirical evidence.

✔ The prompt explicitly allowed personal reaction.

✔ The content did address gender stereotypes and mental health—through a religious lens, which is a valid academic approach.

✔ Being “offended” is not a grading criterion.

Instead of evaluating:

• comprehension
• organization
• clarity

Curth evaluated:

• ideology
• alignment with their worldview
• correctness of belief

That is not grading.
That is indoctrination disguised as instruction.

And that is why the immorality here belongs to the instructor, not the student.

---

What Samantha Actually Said: Not Hate, Not Harassment—Just Belief

The internet loves to distort quotes, so here is what Samantha herself clarified:

“I didn’t mean for that to be offensive, but the truth will offend people.”
— KOCO-TV interview

Samantha even said she would not have a problem with a transgender instructor as long as grading remained fair and neutral.

In other words, she simply asked for what every student deserves:

**An unbiased educator.

Not an activist with a grading spreadsheet.**

---

OU Responds: Administrative Leave and an Internal Investigation

The University of Oklahoma did not brush this away.
They did not dismiss Samantha as a bigot.
They did not hide behind academic jargon.

Instead, they issued a formal statement:

“The graduate student instructor has been placed on administrative leave pending the finalization of this process.”

Universities do not suspend instructors for giving tough feedback.
They suspend instructors when professional misconduct is plausible.

This was not “just a bad grade.”
This was a violation of First Amendment principles, religious neutrality, and academic fairness.

The university openly acknowledged that the issue involves religious discrimination.

That alone tells you where the real wrongdoing is.

---

The Online Firestorm: A Nation Splits in Real Time

The story exploded across platforms:

Turning Point USA

Posted screenshots, essays, statements, and called Curth unfit to teach.
Their post received 38 million+ views.

“Clearly this professor lacks the intellectual maturity to set her own bias aside.”

Brilyn Hollyhand (author)

“She didn’t scream or throw things in class like a liberal would. She wrote an essay. Woke professors are silencing students.”

Dr. Kareem Carr (statistician)

Criticized OU for taking Curth off teaching duties:

“Putting an instructor on leave for giving a bad grade is insane.”

Matt Bernstein (podcaster)

Mocked Samantha’s writing:

“Facts don’t care about your feelings—and the fact is, you can’t write.”

Eric Mochnacz (writer)

“This is also just a horribly written college-level paper.”

This wasn’t just academic debate.
This became another battleground in the national struggle over:

• free speech
• gender identity
• religious expression
• academic authority
• ideological imbalance on campuses

But regardless of political interpretations, one fact stands above the noise:

**A student followed the rubric.

An instructor ignored the rubric.
Only one of those actions violates professional ethics.**

---

Why This Case Exposes a Larger Crisis in Higher Education

Free speech groups like FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) have repeatedly sounded the alarm.
In their latest report:

• Only 36% of students say free speech is clearly protected on campus.
• Conservative and religious students overwhelmingly self-censor.
• Students fear that disagreeing with certain ideological positions will result in grade penalties.

Samantha Fulnecky is no longer an anecdote.
She is the latest example of a systemic problem:

When educators treat disagreement as hate,

education dies.

When instructors cannot separate grading from activism,
integrity dies.

When students must choose between being honest and being academically punished,
free inquiry dies.

This is precisely why The Immoral List exists—
to expose failures of accountability wherever they occur.

---

Why Mel Curth’s Conduct Is the Immoral Act

Regardless of one’s politics, gender identity, or personal beliefs, a simple principle should unite every educator:

Grade the work, not the worldview.

Curth did not do that.

Instead, Curth:

• ignored the rubric
• elevated personal offense into academic punishment
• turned grading into ideological enforcement
• discriminated against a student’s protected religious expression
• forced the university to intervene

Professors wield immense power.
A single grade can impact:

• scholarships
• GPA
• academic standing
• internships
• graduate school applications

To use that power vindictively—because a student does not share your worldview—is not just unprofessional.
It is morally corrupt.

And that is why the instructor, not the student, belongs on The Immoral List.

---

The Real Lesson: Universities Must Restore Academic Neutrality

This isn’t about:

• Christianity
• transgender identities
• conservatism
• liberalism

This is about professional ethics.

When an instructor fails to uphold neutrality, fails to follow their own rubric, and lets personal ideology control academic evaluation, they violate:

• student rights
• institutional trust
• academic freedom
• public confidence

OU was right to place Curth on administrative leave.
But this case raises a deeper question:

How many other students have been silently punished for their beliefs by instructors who were never caught?

---

Final Verdict: The Immorality Belongs to the Instructor

Samantha Fulnecky wrote an opinion essay.
She followed the assignment.
She expressed her beliefs calmly.
She harmed no one.
She used the freedom every student is promised.

Mel Curth did the opposite:

• retaliated against a viewpoint
• let personal ideology override objectivity
• used grading as a weapon
• violated professional standards
• triggered an institutional investigation

This case is not complicated.
It’s not ambiguous.
It’s not “open to interpretation.”

**The immoral action is clear.

The misconduct is clear.
And the responsibility is clear.**

When educators fail their students—not academically, but ethically—they expose themselves.

And for that reason,
Mel Curth rightfully earns a place on The Immoral List.