The OzeEssay ozessay.com.au controversy—named after the University of Oklahoma (OU) incident involving junior psychology major Samantha Fulnecky—centers on a reaction paper that blended biblical principles with academic analysis. Submitted in November 2025, the essay earned a failing grade, sparking accusations of religious discrimination, ideological bias, and threats to free speech on campus. This case has drawn national attention, pitting conservative voices against progressive advocates and raising profound questions about the boundaries of academic freedom. As universities grapple with polarized topics like gender identity, the OzeEssay serves as a stark reminder of the tensions simmering in modern classrooms.
The Assignment and the Essay
The controversy originated in a lifespan development psychology course at OU, where students were tasked with writing a 650-word reaction paper to a scholarly article on gender typicality, peer relations, and mental health in early adolescence. The article explored how gender-related expectations influence young people's social experiences and well-being, drawing on empirical research to highlight the impacts of teasing and norms enforcement.
Samantha Fulnecky, a 20-year-old junior from Oklahoma, approached the assignment through the lens of her Christian faith. In her submission, she praised the article for prompting deep reflection but diverged sharply from its conclusions. Fulnecky argued that traditional binary gender roles align with "God's original plan for humans," citing Genesis to assert that deviations—such as the recognition of multiple genders—represent a "demonic" societal lie. She expressed frustration with what she saw as "cowardly" conformity to avoid offending others, emphasizing that her views were rooted in biblical truth rather than malice.
Fulnecky's essay was not a formal research paper requiring external citations; it was explicitly a personal reaction. Yet, it unapologetically wove scripture into her critique, framing non-binary gender concepts as contrary to divine order and glorifying to "the enemy." This bold integration of faith and analysis set the stage for the backlash that followed.
The Grading Dispute
The essay landed on the desk of Mel Curth, a graduate teaching assistant for the course. Curth, who identifies as transgender and uses she/they pronouns, awarded Fulnecky a zero out of 25 points. In feedback, Curth noted that the paper "contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive." Specifically, the grading rubric deducted points for failing to adequately reference the assigned article, lacking empirical sources, and not engaging substantively with the psychological concepts presented.
Fulnecky was stunned. In interviews, she insisted that her work met the assignment's guidelines, as previous reaction essays in the class—on topics like sibling interactions and gene expression—had allowed personal perspectives without issue. "I viewed all my opinions through the Bible," she explained, denying any intent to provoke. The zero grade prompted her to file a formal complaint with OU's administration, alleging religious discrimination. She argued that her faith-based response was unfairly penalized in a way that secular opinions would not be.
OU's psychology department has not publicly commented on the specifics, but the incident quickly escalated beyond the classroom. Screenshots of the essay and feedback circulated widely, transforming a routine assignment into a viral symbol of campus censorship.
Media Storm and Public Backlash
The story broke nationally when OU's chapter of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a conservative student organization, posted the screenshots on social media. TPUSA framed the grading as "ideological censorship" and discrimination against Christian students, garnering thousands of shares and amplifying Fulnecky's voice. Conservative outlets like The Oklahoman and OCPaThink ran sympathetic profiles, portraying her as a victim of "woke" academia stifling dissent.
The backlash was swift and multifaceted. LGBTQ+ advocacy groups condemned the essay's language as harmful and transphobic, particularly given Curth's identity. After TPUSA doxxed Curth by naming them publicly, the instructor faced a torrent of online harassment, including death threats. Progressive media highlighted this as a dangerous escalation, with outlets emphasizing the essay's description of non-binary ideas as "demonic" and its potential to marginalize transgender educators and students.
The controversy peaked in early December 2025, with cable news segments debating academic standards versus free expression. Hashtags like #OzeEssay and #StandWithSamantha trended on X (formerly Twitter), dividing users along ideological lines. Supporters rallied around Fulnecky's right to express faith, while critics argued that psychology courses demand evidence-based reasoning, not theological assertions.
Broader Implications for Academia
The OzeEssay saga underscores deeper fissures in higher education. At its core, it questions what constitutes acceptable discourse in "scientific" fields like psychology. Defenders of the zero grade point to the rubric's emphasis on empirical engagement—Fulnecky's essay, they argue, prioritized ideology over analysis, akin to failing a physics paper for citing astrology. Yet, Fulnecky and her allies contend this reveals a chilling effect on religious viewpoints, especially on hot-button issues like gender.
This incident echoes past campus clashes, from trigger warnings to speaker disinvitations, but with a twist: the student's faith collided directly with the instructor's lived experience. It has fueled calls for clearer guidelines on personal beliefs in assignments and renewed scrutiny of Title IX protections for religious expression. As one commentator noted, "Universities must balance inclusivity with intellectual rigor—failing at either erodes trust."
OU has launched an internal review, but no resolution has been announced as of December 11, 2025. The case may yet reach federal courts, testing the limits of academic freedom under the First Amendment.
