Oklahoma University junior Samantha Fulnecky wrote a paper for her psychology class attempting to answer a prompt that asked students to compare gender capacity and its impact on behaviors and norms. In her essay, Fulnecky spoke on the Bible’s interpretations of genders, stating that men and women were created differently for a reason and that teasing as a result of low gender capacity is totally normal.
Fulnecky received a grade of zero on this essay. Her professor’s comment stated that she was deducting points because the essay “does not answer the questions for the assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive.”
Due to the bad grade, Fulnecky filed claims of illegal discrimination and even took to organizations such as Turning Point USA to express her concerns, and the professor was eventually fired. A very politicized issue, Fulnecky’s grade was not a matter of science versus the Bible, but rather poor writing. Although her opinion completely contradicts my own personal beliefs, I think with support she could have made valid arguments for her cause.
According to Sara Pequeño of USA TODAY, “It shouldn’t be controversial to say that a poorly argued paper with no scientific reasoning behind it should receive a bad grade.”
So for her and other conservative “officials” to label this (highly normal) incident of an essay receiving a failing grade a case of “discrimination” is absurd, especially following Oklahoma University’s suspension of the professor who graded the essay.
As a senior who has taken advanced placement English-level courses for the past two years, I have learned how to write a sophisticated and complex essay and the importance of doing so. Fulnecky’s paper lacked both as not only did the essay lack sources to support her claim, no specific evidence was provided. In short, the entire essay was one poorly-written opinion.
The professor provided three guidelines that the assignment was required to follow, and overall, the essay was graded out of 25 points: ten points for “a clear tie-in to the assigned article” that accompanied the prompt, ten points for presenting “a thoughtful reaction or response to the article, rather than a summary,” and five points for being “clearly written.”
Fulnecky begins by writing: “This article was very thought provoking and caused me to thoroughly evaluate the idea of gender and the role it plays in our society.”
For the rest of her introduction paragraph, Fulnecky highlights the idea that “God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose.”
Similar mistakes such as these, along with ridiculous sentences like, “Women naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts,” are evident in pretty much Fulnecky’s entire essay; the whole piece of writing seems to come from the hands of a middle schooler in their very first English class.
Yes, these sentences were written by a junior in college. No, they are not easy to read. Yes, the entire essay is constructed of sentences such as those above. No, Fulnecky did not receive the five points that were only given to clearly written essays.
The wording of Fulnecky’s paragraph insults those who do not share her beliefs while at the same time fails to provide supporting evidence. When her professor said that the paper was at times offensive, this is likely what she meant. A better argument would acknowledge opposing viewpoints and use factual evidence to support the claim while acknowledging counter claims.
Overall, Fulnecky’s essay doesn’t even mention the article that was to be discussed along with the prompt. Here, ten points can be deducted due to a clear straying away from the rubric’s first requirement.
As Fulnecky’s essay progresses, it is evident that aside from the Bible (which also was not properly cited in her essay), little to no research was conducted that led to her conclusions.
The second set of points from the rubric could have been obtained had the writer considered providing a thoughtful response to the article that was to be read with the prompt, and supported those arguments with reliable and scientific sources. The sheer lack of credibility in Fulnecky’s essay alone could be the reason why these ten points were not given to her; however, upon further glance, one can also notice that there is also a total lack of critical thinking in her writing.
Her simple claims, while presenting an argument that could have been backed by many significant resources, were scarce of any sort of critical thought.
In order to gain the final five points, the essay must be “clearly written.” An essay that is clearly written is built not only on varying syntax and professional diction, but also support. Due to the fact that Fulnecky’s essay contains almost no support for her argument, her claims do not come off as “clear,” as it may be hard to understand what she is saying. Again, had Fulnecky researched her topic and provided evidence from reliable sources, she would have received these five points.
All in all, Fulnecky’s article contained a total lack of critical thinking, was a general reaction to the topic instead of an actual compelling argument that addressed the prompt, and did not tie in the article that was a requirement to read alongside the prompt. It seemed as if Fulnecky simply did not want to address or discuss facts that contradicted herself.
I heard about a student who did not want to read a text that contradicted their religion, and a teacher at my school had a fantastic response. She said that one’s belief in their faith should be strong enough to be tested.
Fulnecky’s arguments, with references to the Bible, should have included at least a counterargument, acknowledging evidence that refuted her beliefs. In an attempt to gain complexity, it would have been in her best interest to then consider these refutes and provide rebuttals that further shaped her opinions and views, maybe even including more than just one source to support her ideas.
One could sit all day and point out flaws in just Fulnecky’s writing style alone that led to the zero she received.
Fulnecky claimed that her main motive behind writing the essay was to “encourage other Christians to stand up for their beliefs,” an idea that wasn’t even asked about in the essay’s prompt.
Fulnecky cannot write a terrible essay, and then blame her transgender professor for being discriminatory after giving her a failing grade. Had she adhered to the assignments rubric, provided more than one source for her evidence, and actually created an argument worth debating, it is guaranteed she would have received a better score.
It seems as if it’s in the best interest of Oklahoma University to move their attention to teaching grammar rules and essay writing techniques, rather than firing their staff for simply doing their jobs.
Story continues below advertisement
