This piece responds to Samantha Fulnecky’s viral essay in the same format she was assigned: a reaction grounded in evidence, engagement, and critical thought.
An essay written by a University of Oklahoma student went viral earlier this month after junior Samantha Fulnecky claimed that the teaching assistant for her 2000-level psychology course, Lifespan Development, failed her because of her Christian beliefs. Since gaining national attention, Fulnecky’s essay has circulated online alongside the assignment prompt, grading rubric, and the TA’s written feedback. After reviewing these materials, I find that her failing grade reflects not religious discrimination, but a refusal to participate in academic discourse. The paper she submitted relied on personal ideology rather than critical analysis, ignored the assignment prompt, rejected empirical research, failed to meet rubric standards, and ultimately substituted belief for scholarly engagement.
I first encountered this controversy while scrolling through social media and quickly recognized it as a compelling topic for OFM. With approval from Editor-in-Chief Addison, I approached the issue not as a cultural outrage cycle, but as an academic exercise. Fulnecky’s assignment was to write a reaction paper responding to the peer-reviewed article “Relations Among Gender Typicality, Peer Relations, and Mental Health During Early Adolescence,” (not available for free to the public) a study examining how adherence to or deviation from traditional gender norms affects peer relationships and mental health outcomes in early adolescence. This context matters because the controversy hinges not on what Fulnecky believes, but on what the assignment required her to do.
A reaction paper is not an opinion essay. While it allows room for personal perspective, that perspective must be grounded in engagement with the assigned material. The purpose is to analyze, question, or critique the research using evidence and critical thinking—not to dismiss it outright based on preexisting beliefs. In fact, reaction papers often challenge students to confront their own biases and consider how research complicates or contradicts their assumptions. Fulnecky’s public statements, including those cited in conservative media coverage, suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of this purpose.
Before evaluating her paper, I revisited standard expectations for reaction essays and reviewed the course rubric provided online. I then examined the essay Fulnecky submitted. One of the most immediate issues was the absence of a clear academic thesis. A thesis in this context should articulate an arguable claim about the study itself—its findings, methodology, or implications. Instead, Fulnecky asserts her religious beliefs as unquestioned truth and frames gender diversity as inherently harmful without connecting those claims to the research she was assigned to evaluate. What most closely resembles a thesis does not address the study at all; rather it rejects the topic outright on theological grounds.
Equally significant is the lack of empirical evidence. Fulnecky offers no data, scholarly sources, or citations to support her claims, nor does she meaningfully engage with the article’s findings. Disagreement with research is not only allowed in academic writing, it is encouraged—but such disagreement must be argued. Simply declaring the research invalid because it conflicts with personal belief does not meet college-level standards for analysis.
The grading rubric further clarifies why the paper failed. Ten of the 25 available points were allocated to demonstrating clear engagement with the assigned article. In reviewing the essay, I struggled to find any substantive connection between Fulnecky’s writing and the study beyond the superficial use of related terminology. Even applying a generous standard, this section would merit only minimal credit. Another portion of the rubric asks whether the paper presents a thoughtful reaction rather than an emotional or purely opinion-based response. Here again, the paper falls short, relying on moral judgment instead of critical reasoning.
Finally, the rubric assessed clarity and structure. Without a guiding thesis, Fulnecky’s essay circles the same assertions repeatedly, giving the impression of padding rather than purposeful argumentation. The paper also failed to meet the minimum word count requirements. According to the rubric, essays between 620 and 649 words automatically lost 10 points; Fulnecky’s submission totaled approximately 630 words. After this deduction, no points remained available.
Taken together, these factors fully explain the failing grade. Framing this outcome as anti-Christian discrimination obscures the real issue: Academic standards were not met. More troubling is how quickly this narrative has been amplified by partisan media outlets, transforming a straightforward grading decision into a perceived attack on faith. In reality, the harm lies in conflating accountability with persecution—and in allowing media illiteracy to turn academic critique into cultural panic, a pattern that ultimately fuels misinformation about LGBTQ+ people and legitimizes the very biases that higher education is meant to challenge through evidence, critical thinking, and intellectual rigor.
OFM has written about the mental health effects of Anti-LGBTQ+ media in the past. The way Samantha’s paper has spread thanks to conservative outlets calling her a martyr is very much part of the problem. I stand on the side of the TA who was put on leave because a student through a tantrum for a failing grade that she deserved for not doing the assignment.
