As a student myself, at first, I felt I would be doing a disservice to the students of Lake Land College (LLC) if I failed to approach the subject of the now-viral University of Oklahoma (OU) essay solely through the lens of a college student. Then I realized that my experiences, not only as a former copy editor for The Navigator News, but also as a Christian, and ultimately as a student at Lake Land College, have all contributed to how I continue to digest the essay’s material.
The developing situation initially began with a failed grade. Samantha Fulnecky, a junior at the University of Oklahoma, was tasked with providing a 650-word reaction paper to an article discussing the topics of “Gender Typicality, Peer Relations, and Mental Health” in her psychology course, according to a rubric obtained by the Oklahoma-based news station KOCO 5.
According to a now partially removed social media post, OU’s Turning Point USA chapter (TPUSA OU) released Fulnecky’s full essay, a move that has since been criticized as having the opposite effect due to the piece’s subpar writing.
Throughout the essay, Fulnecky makes claims that teasing children to conform to gender norms is “not necessarily” an issue and is instead beneficial to childhood development. She also goes on to explain why she believes gender norms are important for society, as, according to Fulenecky, “Women naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts.”
Fulnecky’s essay was graded by Mel Curth, a now-terminated graduate teaching assistant at OU, who gave her a failing grade on the assignment. A second instructor for the course also reviewed the essay, as well as Curth’s analysis, and agreed with the initial grade.
As a previous copy editor, the ways in which Fulnecky uses writing as a medium to express her opinions leaves much to be desired. Regardless of the structured nature of the paper and the course, or possible lack thereof, parentheses should never be used in a professional, academic setting. Throughout the essay, Fulenecky finishes sentences with phrases such as “(which is a woman)” and “(women’s roles).” These expressions interfere with the purpose of the piece and muddy the prose, weakening Fulnecky’s overall stance on the issue.
As a Christian myself, I personally disagree with her claims regarding gender norms within society, but that is not the point. In the end, what matters is not which side I take, but instead in how I point out the inconsistencies within Fulnecky’s reasoning and that of her supporters, so that a broader understanding can take place.
The cornerstone of Fulnecky’s argument is, ultimately, religious discrimination. Specifically, in her assertion that she is being discriminated against as a result of citing the Holy Bible. Fulnecky believes that, because she took a stand and defended her religion, she should have received full marks on the paper. However, Fulnecky’s paper was not a defense of her religion, but instead a platform for her to express her grievances with those she finds herself at odds with, especially her fellow classmates.
Fulnecky fails to realize that religion is subjective, and her opinions stem from the perceptions of the Bible that she has personally gathered–opinions that have historically been influenced by political giants, as well as the church. Her claims are hinged, not upon the content of the Bible itself, but on the societal expectations that have been primarily adopted by the American church system.
Fulnecky and TPUSA OU have both claimed that the student cited the Bible within the essay. To be clear, Fulenecky did not accurately cite the Bible, nor did she appropriately reference it as a source for her piece. More accurately, Fulnecky references her own personal perception of the Bible’s scriptures as a source, which is what she now claims are grounds for religious discrimination, despite subpar writing and rushed sentence structures seeming to be the culprit in terms of her failing grade.
Claiming that her opinion is based on the scripture of the Bible fails to recognize the subjectivity of the original sacred piece, as well as the influences that have gone into her own belief system, making Fulnecky’s assertion of religious discrimination shaky at best, especially when the content and quality of the essay’s writing are taken into account.
What became a nationwide scandal could have instead been dealt with as an opportunity for growth. Rather than costing a fellow student her job, and possibly her career, Samantha Fulnecky, perhaps, should have gone to the graduate teaching assistant herself and asked to redo the assignment. But Fulnecky chose to double down on her claims of religious discrimination, advocating not for an opportunity to fix her mistakes–where she still could have written a paper that accurately aligned with her vision of her own religion to which she is entitled– instead opting for a full review of the grade entirely. A wonderful moment of working to better one’s own personal shortcomings was replaced in favor of victimhood and self-service.
The outcome of failing a seemingly inconsequential 25-point assignment has since spiraled into a meritocracy circus of mediocrity, when the situation could have had a completely different outcome. No more Right vs. Left, or various religions warring for dominance, but rather a simple moment of self-reflection and personal growth.
So, I leave the readers of The Navigator News with one simple question: If you went to OU, is this essay how you would like your collegiate-level education to be represented?
