A recent incident at the University of Oklahoma (OU) has brought to light significant concerns regarding academic standards within higher education. A graduate assistant in a course on gender studies assigned students to respond to an article about gender-nonconforming children. One student, Samantha Fulnecky, received a failing grade after expressing her disagreement with the premise that there are multiple genders. This decision by course instructor Mel Curth has sparked discussions about academic freedom and the responsibilities of educators.
In her essay, Fulnecky stated that she “strongly” disagreed with the notion that encouraging acceptance of diverse gender expressions could enhance students’ confidence. She characterized this idea as a “lie,” arguing that it contradicts her belief that there are only two sexes. In response, Curth awarded her a zero, asserting that every major medical association recognizes that sex and gender are neither binary nor fixed. This incident has raised questions about the expectations placed on students regarding their personal beliefs and the academic rigor of assignments.
Critics have pointed out that the assignment lacked the complexity typically expected at the college level, as it did not require research or citations from external sources. Observers noted that such assignments may have become commonplace in online classes at OU, raising concerns about the overall quality of education. The fact that the instructor was a graduate assistant rather than a faculty member has also drawn scrutiny. Students invest significant amounts of money to attend OU, and many feel they deserve a higher standard of education.
According to a study commissioned by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs over a decade ago, it was estimated that 20 percent of OU professors taught 60 percent of classes. This disparity indicated that a small group of educators contributed significantly to the institution’s teaching efforts while others drew substantial salaries without similar productivity. The potential financial implications are considerable, with estimates suggesting that if faculty productivity were equalized, OU could have saved nearly $100 million annually. Current figures are likely to be even more pronounced.
Additionally, while some professors at OU may be overcompensated, others, particularly in nursing programs, are underpaid. This discrepancy complicates efforts to recruit and retain staff in areas where there is a strong market demand for trained professionals. The role of federal student loan programs in perpetuating this situation is also a concern, as they provide substantial funding to institutions regardless of their educational quality.
The American Association of University Professors has voiced its support for Curth, arguing that academic freedom includes the right for faculty to select materials, determine teaching approaches, make assignments, and assess student performance. This stance has been met with criticism, as it is perceived by some as an endorsement of arbitrary grading practices and discrimination against students based on their beliefs.
As the debate continues, many Oklahoma taxpayers are likely weighing the value of higher education against the rising costs associated with attending institutions like OU. Jonathan Small, president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, emphasizes the need for educational institutions to prioritize the needs and expectations of their students. The outcome of this incident may have lasting implications for teaching practices and academic standards in colleges across the nation.
