Actual text of Samantha Fulnecky's assignment, paper, and professors' comments
I've been seeing this story pop up here and there and wanted to see what everybody was so upset about.
Luckily, TurningPointOU posted screenshots. The transcripts are below and I've rehosted the screenshots on Catbox.
What grade would you have given?
::: spoiler The assignment (screenshot) You must write a 650 words (body of text), double-spaced reaction paper demonstrating that you read the assigned article, and includes a thoughtful reaction to the material presented in the article. Points will be deducted when papers are deficient in any of these areas. I will deduct 10 points if your paper is between 620 and 649 words, and I will not give credit for papers under 620 words. Papers not turned in by the deadline will not receive credit.
Please remember that your reaction paper should not be a summary, but rather a thoughtful discussion of some aspect of the article. Possible approaches to reaction papers include:
- A discussion of why you feel the topic is important and worthy of study (or not)
- An application of the study or results to your own experiences
(screenshot) There are other possibilities as well. The best reaction papers illustrate that students have read the assigned materials and engaged in critical thinking about some aspect of the article.
Formatting requirements: 12-point Times New Roman or Calibri font, one-inch margins on all sides.
GRADING: Reaction papers are graded on a 25-point scale, and are evaluated based on the following:
- Does the paper show a clear tie-in to the assigned article? (10 points)
- Does the paper present a thoughtful reaction or response to the article, rather than a summary? (10 points)
- Is the paper clearly written? (5 points)
:::
::: spoiler Samantha's paper (screenshot) This article was very thought provoking and caused me to thoroughly evaluate the idea of gender and the role it plays in our society. The article discussed peers using teasing as a way to enforce gender norms. I do not necessarily see this as a problem. God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose. God is very intentional with what He makes, and I believe trying to change that would only do more harm. Gender roles and tendencies should not be considered “stereotypes”. Women naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts. The same goes for men. God created men in the image of His courage and strength, and He created women in the image of His beauty. He intentionally created women differently than men and we should live our lives with that in mind.
(screenshot) It is frustrating to me when I read articles like this and discussion posts from my classmates of so many people trying to conform to the same mundane opinion, so they do not step on people’s toes. I think that is a cowardly and insincere way to live. It is important to use the freedom of speech we have been given in this country, and I personally believe that eliminating gender in our society would be detrimental, as it pulls us farther from God’s original plan for humans. It is perfectly normal for kids to follow gender “stereotypes” because that is how God made us. The reason so many girls want to feel womanly and care for others in a motherly way is not because they feel pressured to fit into social norms. It is because God created and chose them to reflect His beauty and His compassion in that way. In Genesis, God says that it is not good for man to be alone, so He
(screenshot) created a helper for man (which is a woman). Many people assume the word “helper” in this context to be condescending and offensive to women. However, the original word in Hebrew is “ezer kenegdo” and that directly translates to “helper equal to”. Additionally, God describes Himself in the Bible using “ezer kenegdo”, or “helper”, and He describes His Holy Spirit as our Helper as well. This shows the importance God places on the role of the helper (women’s roles). God does not view women as less significant than men. He created us with such intentionally and care and He made women in his image of being a helper, and in the image of His beauty. If leaning into that role means I am “following gender stereotypes” then I am happy to be following a stereotype that aligns with the gifts and abilities God gave me as a woman.
(screenshot) I do not think men and women are pressured to be more masculine or feminine. I strongly disagree with the idea from the article that encouraging acceptance of diverse gender expressions could improve students’ confidence. Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth. I do not want kids to be teased or bullied in school. However, pushing the lie that everyone has their own truth and everyone can do whatever they want and be whoever they want is not biblical whatsoever. The Bible says that our lives are not our own but that our lives and bodies belong to the Lord for His glory. I live my life based on this truth and firmly believe that there would be less gender issues and insecurities in children if they were raised knowing that they do not belong to themselves, but they belong to the Lord. :::
::: spoiler Trans professor's comments (screenshot) Mel Curth (She/They)
November 16, 2025 at 2:04 PM
Please note that I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs, but instead I am deducting point for you posting a reaction paper that does not answer the questions for this assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive. While you are entitled to your own personal beliefs, there is an appropriate time or place to implement them in your reflections. I encourage all students to question or challenge the course material with other empirical findings or testable hypotheses, but using your own personal beliefs to argue against the findings of not only this article, but the findings of countless articles across psychology, biology, sociology, etc. is not best practice. You argue that abiding by normative gender roles is beneficial (it is perfectly fine to believe this), but to then say that everyone should act
(screenshot) the same, while also saying that people aren't pressured into gendered expectations is contradictory, especially since your arguments reflect a religious pressure to act in gender-stereotypical ways. You can say that strict gender norms don't create gender stereotypes, but that isn't true by definition of what a stereotype is. Please note that acknowledging gender stereotypes does not immediately denote a negative connotation, a nuance this article discusses. Additionally, to call an entire group of people "demonic" is highly offensive, especially a minoritized population. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but this isn't a vague narrative of "society pushes lies," but instead the result of countless years developing psychological and scientific evidence for these claims and directly interacting with the communities involved. You may personally disagree with this, but that
(screenshot) doesn't change the fact that every major psychological, medical, pediatric, and psychiatric association in the United States acknowledges that, biologically and psychologically, sex and gender is neither binary nor fixed. I implore you apply some more perspective and empathy in your work. If you personally disagree with the findings, then by all means share your criticisms, but make sure to do so in a way that is appropriate and using the methodology of empirical psychology, as aligned with the learning goals in this class. If you have any additional questions or concerns about this or would like some additional educational resources, I would be happy to discuss this further and provide you with them. :::
::: spoiler Additional professor's comments
(screenshot) Megan Waldron (She/Her/Hers)
November 16, 2025 at 3:09 PM
Samantha, I am the other instructor for this course, and I have also taken the time to read your paper. I concur with Mel on the grade you received. This paper should not be considered as a completion of the assignment. Everyone has different ways in which they see the world, but in an academic course such as this you are being asked to support your ideas with empirical evidence and higher-level reasoning. I find it concerning that you state at the beginning of your paper that you do not think bullying (“teasing”) is a bad thing. In addition, your paper directly and harshly criticizes your peers and their opinions, which are just as valuable as yours. Disagreeing with others is fine, but there is a respectful way to go about it. That goes for discussion posts as well as reaction papers. Please employ more thoughtfulness in your future assignments. :::
I'm really impressed by the grader's response. They didn't just fail her for not doing the assignment, but broke down why and how her rhetoric is flawed. The fact the school couldn't stand behind this clear and concise feedback just means that Oklahoma doesn't really care about the quality of the work done at their school.
We've been turning public schools into diploma mills for a while now. This is just another step towards the Liberty University-ification of the national academic system.
I mean it is Oklahoma, we couldn't possibly expect more of them... :/
I wish their accreditation could be revoked for this.
should
would
Oklahoma, the state Missouri thanks god for.
Their written response is great but I would've flagged this with my boss.
That's definitely fair criticism, but its sad that bringing in their boss should be necessary in a situation like this.
🌎👨🚀🔫👨🚀
I hope some other state university gives a job offer to the professor.
Are you impressed they mentioned a number of reasons not in the assignment criteria or that the assignment is a called a reaction paper? I was skeptical about the student's grievance until the assignment statement caught my attention.
The criteria for a reaction could have mentioned scientifically rigorous reasoning drawn on empirical research as the professor stated in their response. Instead, they were astonishingly lax: a clear reaction of some required length demonstrating they had read & thought about the article. Was the professor's expectation stated elsewhere, perhaps in the syllabus?
I don't want to agree with MAGA student, but then I see this joke of assignment specification & have to wonder.
They called out multiple reasons why their response didn't rise to the standards of an empirical analysis. Making up your own philosophical reasoning (that isn't even consistent within the paper submitted) for a sociological analysis means that the paper contributed nothing to the topic at hand.
For a college level course, you shouldn't need to explicitly state that a mythos can't be used as empirical evidence.
Dogmatic, ideological junk isn't philosophical. It is opinion & reaction.
Again, where does the assignment say to do that?
As written, it merely demands a clear "reaction" showing they read the linked article & thought about it. Where's the scientific rigor in that?
If the professor had wanted scientific rigor, then it wouldn't have been hard to plainly write that like a grownass professional would be expected to do. It seems you're faulting students for following soft instructions exactly as written.
The student's essay does neither of these things. The essay shows the student read the title of the article, not the article itself. I realize those as are the type of reactions we're used to seeing on Lemmy, but a reaction showing they read the article would mention points directly from the article instead of just the general theme of "Trans people existing".
Regurgitating dogmatic talking points does not demonstrate that the student "thought about it". It reads like the student read the title, maybe the first couple of lines, then shut off their brain and said "trans bad because others tell me trans bad".
Again, I realize it's very common to see replies from people that did not read or think about an article so this seems normal, but a collage level course is going to have higher standards than social media.
It's a psychology class. This doesn't need to be stated.
Asking (in unusual, soft language) for a thoughtful "reaction" isn't unexpected for a science class?
Why shouldn't an assignment that already departs from common expectations for a science class need it stated which expectations still apply?
So the science class needs science stuff. Glad I could clear this up.
They also didn't clarify that the assignment should be organized into sentences considering of nouns and verbs and be understandable by an English speaker. It did not clarify that the due date should be understood through the lense of a conventional calendar.
There's some table stakes expectations that you don't need to explicitly state over and over again.
In what sense did she not do the assignment? Which aspects of the grading rubric do you think she failed at? Her rhetoric may be flawed, but that wasn't part of the assignment. You could argue that flawed rhetoric is bad writing, but that's only 5 points of the assignment out of a total of 25.
Well, the TA does a pretty good job explaning where it is lacking.
I don't think this would be acceptable in a theological course because it is hot garbage, let alone a sociology(?) course.
Again though: Which aspects of the grading rubric do you think she failed at? The TA talks about things that aren't on the grading rubric, or if they are they fall under "bad writing" which is only worth 5 points.
you are confusing the assignment and the grading.
they are two separate things.
the assignment was:
the submission failed on both these points, and thus it is automatically disqualified, no grading is even applied.
there was no discussion in the submission.
"discussion" in an academic context is a technical term that means "examining a topic based on evidence from some point of view". you may have encountered something similar in school as a pro/contra essay. in academia this gets expanded on by requiring evidence in the form of citations in order to support one's positions and conclusions (or lack thereof).
since the student did not provide sources, this point of the assignment is not fulfilled.
the same goes for the second point, for the same reasons: insufficient evidence was provided.
the teachers explain this in their response.
since neither part of the assignment is fulfilled no grading is applied: it's an automatic failure.
this is also explained in the response.
you may want to carefully read the responses again, and keep in mind that all of this is happening in an academic context. providing evidence is expected by default.
"i believe", "i feel", 'the bible says", etc., are NOT evidence in a scientific context....
Nice breakdown, I've seen a couple people commenting that are missing the fact that quoting a personal religious belief isn't the same as empirical evidence to back up an arguement.
Not to mention it feels more like the student was just trying to personally attack the TA.
yes, exactly!
what i think is rather important to point out:
even in theology this shit wouldn't fly!
that's how absurd this "controversy" is.
because even in theology you need to provide sound argumentation and sources. even there you need more evidence than this "student" submitted.
it's just...so, so absurd.
I think defining discussion here is the critical point. If someone take the assignment literally, they don't need to provide arguments to describe how they feel about the topic in the article.
Since this part can be interpreted differently, the students should get some points. Or ask the resubmit their papers with "scientifically supported evidence"
the problem here is that this is in a university setting.
the student has almost certainly been made aware of what "discussion" means.
i explained in a different comment (check my profile if the link doesn't work, not sure how to properly link comments...) why this is not a sufficient excuse.
because the previous comment seemed well received, I'll try to give another example of how this sort of course might generally play out:
at a typical university you'll get some general orientation at the beginning of the first semester. this will include things like the rules for exams, the rules for the campus, the rules for the dorms (if there are any), the rules for general conduct and behavior on-campus, and a ton of other shit like safety drills in case of a fire or other catastrophe, laboratory training (if relevant), and on and on. there's a LOT to cover in the first few weeks. you'll probably sign a bunch of forms that say "i have read the rules" in legalese, so that there is proof that you have been made aware of the rules.
this orientation will include, or be closely followed by, a class on scientific work.
this course will cover the scientific method, scientific literature, scientific citations (in the specific style of your field and university), the formatting of all your submissions (there's usually a template you are supposed to use, though this is somewhat dependant on the teacher of any given class.)
there will also be sections on scientific language: the difference between a scientific theory and a "theory" in casual language, what a scientific paper really is and how to tell the difference between a high quality and a low quality paper (or if the paper is just complete nonsense.), and so forth.
this is were the student in the OP almost certainly learned how the assignment given was supposed to be written.
there's literally entire classes for this specific thing.
and yeah, that's because it's actually difficult to do properly!
there's nothing "unfair", or "unexpected", or "insufficiently clear" about this work assignment.
it can seem that way to someone who hasn't been to university, but to everyone who has, it's clear as day.
there is never a need to point out things like "you need to use proper citations in your work", or "you need to follow the scientific method", because this has already been covered and is then expected in damn near every assignment afterwards.
it's the expected standard.
so there are two possibilities here:
either the student hasn't absorbed the material of the previously mentioned class, and just kinda winged it, hoping for the best, and is thus simply an exceedingly bad scientist, which means the failure was entirely deserved.
...or they did it on purpose, and the failure was entirely deserved.
my money is definitely on the latter.
TL;DR:
she damn well knew this submission would be disqualified.
because all students know this.
it's literally the scientific method, and thus one of the very first things they teach you at university.
hope this clears up why none of this is explicitly mentioned in the assignment, but feel free to ask more questions!
You can claim that there are requirements that are not mentioned anywhere in any of the instructions given to the students, but there's no evidence for that in what they were actually given.
the evidence is: this is a university course.
this is normal for every university in the world. everyone that's ever taken a university course knows this.
it's quite literally the scientific method.
it's almost never spelled out anywhere, because students generally have dedicated courses that teach this method and related things like researching, proper citations, writing structures and styles, etc.
usually called something like "scientific working" or something (don't know what it's called in english, german is usually something like "wissenschaftliches arbeiten").
this isn't kindergarten; there are prerequisites and they are expected by default.
these aren't children, they're adults.
and everyone involved knew this in advance.
this is not "hidden" or "secret".
it's a standard.
There is no requirement listed that the assignment be written in English, or submitted on paper. An assignment written in Latin on the side of a cow (with a 1 inch margin) is not explicitly forbidden.
The rubric gives only a small amount of context. Do you think it should explicitly say "contains college-quality writing?"
I usually put that crap in the syllabus.
She posted a rant she probably wrote 5 minutes before the deadline and expected to be praised for it. How very conservative. The biblical historiography she dabbled in doesn't even come close to the topic at hand and is the closest she got to making an academic point. I award you no points and may God have mercy on you all.
From what I heard the mother of this student is a known conservative influencer/frivolous litigant. It is very likely that she was put up to this so that it could be made into a national story, the school could be sued, and they could get rid of a trans professor to boot.
i don't think she was put up to it but used her mothers influence to retaliate against the educators
she is just following in her mother's shadow
it looks staged by his mother, tpusa sole purpose is to convert college students into republicans that would be elected in the future.
"His mother"
Just how did you make that mistake..?
Considering that a poor grade would just result in re-taking the class next semester, foul play would probably be worth the cost of those credit-hours.
It's a twenty-five point short essay that really only asks the student to show that they read and understood the article. I'd be surprised if this assignment was more than about 2% of the final grade.
Same, I’d expect a 650 word response to assigned reading to be more in the weekly homework category than the major project one.
it was a TA, and the university"fired"her, i smell a lawsuit against the university.
It's very clearly bait, down to the fact it landed EXACTLY in the middle of the 40% grade reduction word count.
Realistically, the graders should have seen it coming, and had better prepared to defend the grade.
They did defend the grade. The university folded and went the appease-the-right-wing-assholes route instead of standing behind the well reasoned grading
Her mom's name is Karen?
Even God would be embarassed by that paper.
If he weren't so busy maiming infants in Gaza, et al, of course.
Her rhetoric aside, the paper reads like it was written at the middle school level. The sentence structure is terrible, ideas are not exactly the most coherent, and the bulk of the thought process flows like a squirrel having an anuerism. Like yeah, have your opinions, but present them in a way that at least fakes a college-level analysis, not something that you'd post on your Facebook wall.
Edit: spelling is hard
um.
good thing this isn’t a college paper or formal setting eh
Whew. 😅
her mother was one of the J6 lawyers to defend them, it make sense.
Getting a professor fired for having your essay flunked for quoting the bible in a science essay. We've been too tolerant on christian dogmas.
She didn't even quote the Bible, just asserted that her interpretation is the right one without mentioning a single verse.
She doesn't need to quote the bible, these people don't need to correctly interpret anything, just use it as an argument they can twist to spread their backwards ideas. And whe have been allowing this.
As a Christian all I know is that Jesus embraced the prosecuted, he protected whores, lepers and brought together confronted tribes. Seems that some forget "let he who is free of sin cast the first stone"
So Jesus wouldn't condemn the gay, the trans or anyone else, even if they live in sin (which we all do!) he would just teach them without blaming them from pretty much every issue in the world right now.
It's obvious they are just confronting one another. Men vs Women, Hetero vs Homosexual, poor vs less poor, north vs south, east vs west, first world vs third world, while they bleed all of us and it just works.
There are so many warnings in the Bible with what's happening in USA right now, false teachers specially.
And I am far from a good Christian too, it's kinda difficult to be.
The corrections to the paper literally ask for actual quotes lol
If there is something we have learned this last decade is: The christo-fascist don't need to quote the bible to use as an instrument of hate. They can interpret the bible however they want; Use religious doctrine as a political argument with this free interpretation and use they monetary power to infiltrate government. I am not against people having their belifes. I am against these beliefs infiltrating education and politics.
A Christian dogma is to not prosecute other people.
God didn't made women "beauty" (like she says) because God is beauty.
I think the Issue is that christian dogma is being used widely to persecute people, and infiltrate circles of power. Civilized countries have secular government and education for a reason!
The issue is pretty much greed. There are certain elements of humanity that are so greedy (hungry for power, for money) that they cope every single religion, ideology and turn them to satisfy their own need.
Any belief is a door for someone else to exploit.
Even as a species we are pure uncontrolled greed, maybe because of who we are led by, maybe because that's how we are as a group.
That professor should sue TPUSA for that headline. The reasons the essay got a zero are available, so the headline saying it was because she quoted the Bible is a blatant lie.
They also got the student's last name wrong for some reason.
“Look, we don’t believe in calling someone by their preferred name. We’ll call her whatever we want.”
Absolutely! I saw zero citations and mostly baseless opinions. I would've failed her as well. It was very poorly written.
does it even quote the Bible?
Evangelicals would never lie. It has to be true
No academic sources
Use of first person throughout
Academic writing conventions not present
More a reflection than reaction
Sorry but unless this is a foundation student they're getting a 35%.
The irony is, if she had gotten a 35% that would have been the end of it. This whole thing blew up because she got a 0. That's why I feel like 0's should never be given on an assignment unless literally nothing was turned in. A 0 comes off as personal; even in cases like this where the person absolutely deserves to fail, it casts doubt on the impartiality of the grader.
But giving a 35%? Well that's different. That's acknowledging the person attempted the assignment, they just did a pathetically shit job at it. In some ways, it's more humiliating than a 0, because the grader at least tried to give you some credit, but is still highlighting how fucking stupid you are.
I think that is all correct, but still might find some way to rationalize up to a non zero final grade, just because of the extreme optics while something like a 3/25 is for all intents and purposes just as bad but just "looks" better.
But frankly the students intent from the second of reading the assignment was likely to leverage the assignment to cry woke and go to Internet no matter what.
I got a zero on a paper my freshman year of college, for not citing sources in my writing. I learned from that mistake and did better for the rest of my academic career.
She's a junior, she should know that by now.
I'm a very generous marker, generally I look for any merit and credit where I can within the scheme.
A 0 is a very strong statement saying "you produced nothing of value", and it's very very rare to hand out. In the case of a deduction, normally you tell them their grade pre-penalty to at least signal what was worthwhile with the aim of helping the student grow.
Hell, based on the quality of writing she is probably used to scores like 35%.
The prompt specifically requested a personal reaction.
A personal reaction in an academic style is analytic in nature and rarely autobiographical. It links the content to the literature shaping one's views.
The brief also specified it as critical, which at undergrad levels means exploring literature views and synthesizing rather than just vomiting a stream of consciousness unrelated to the course content.
This paper was terrible. It’s full of sentence fragments, run‑ons, and generally inconsistent grammar and lots of repetition and weak structure. It relies almost entirely on vague Bible references without citing specific passages or any psychological research, despite making claims about youth mental health and gender. And besides the fact it doesn’t follow the assignment at all, it’s just horribly written.
How does this pass for a uni level essay? Not to belabour the point but this is a final grade assignment for a social and developmental psychology course and the best she could do is quote the bible (honestly could have given her some points for the "ezer kenegdo" insight and received less heat) but stating personal opinions as fact was a big wtf - I mean this reads like a primary school level submission.
like imagine this was like an astronomy class and the student said "believing the earth rotates around the sun is demonic as Chronicles 16:30 clearly states the world cannot be moved"
It doesn't. That is why she didn't get a grade.
I don't think that paper would deserve a passing grade in a theology class that was specifically asking for this sort of opinion. It was written very poorly, failed to properly cite anything, and wasn't even internally consistent.
There's no scenario, academically, that this paper deserved good marks.
Let’s be real…the MAGA fascists just saw “transgender” and that was all they needed to hear. The next words could have been “saved a baby from a fire”, and they would have wanted them fired.
PS…that subject of this article looks like this guy Allen I grew up with.
I used to teach community college sociology. Even as a reaction paper, that is not college level work. I would have given the student one redo.
People analyzing the content of the paper and trying to justify the grade are missing the point. Imagine someone submitted a well researched, beautifully written paper criticizing the Bible in one of the christian universities and got 0 points. Imagine they then complained on twitter. Would the teacher be suspended and investigated? Obviously not.
This is not a story about grading papers. This story is about well organized right-wing student organizations using their influence to impose their ideology on everyone. This story is about US shifting father and farther to the right because corporate America works with conservatives to silence the progressive ideology and the left not having structures to do anything about it. (This would be a good place to talk about Charlie Kirk shooting but I don't really know what to say. It's definitely not the right way to do it but it's also the only thing done recently that had some effect).
The Bible is never a valid source for anything. It is literally a book of fiction. It would be like using a Stephen King book as a source.
True. But the problem wasn't that she used the bible as a source, the problem is that she didn't answer the question at all, and used the bible as a source to describe her own beliefs. Beliefs she's entitled to have, as the professor's comment pointed out, but you can't ignore the question of the assignment and use it as a platform to share your beliefs and expect to get a passing grade. If she wanted to use the assignment as a protest, she should be proud to get an F as a form of martyrdom, but as the Jesus pointed out, she opted to receive her worldly reward instead of a heavenly one (not that she would, but for argument's sake).
Her writing style, the quality of her submission, and the fact that TPUSA shared this publicly and think it shows them in the right as they continue to attack the professor who graded this garbage submission very gentle is a symptom of the complete lack of education these people are exposed to.
She didn't even use the Bible as a source - did not mention a single verse. She basically using herself as the sole source because there are 0 citations.
Graded gently? I'm curious how it might have been graded more harshly lol
Grade: F (0/100) Your submission does not meet the basic expectations for an academic reflection or critique. Rather than engaging the article’s claims with evidence, you substitute personal belief as an argument and treat disagreement as a rebuttal. That is not analysis; it is opinion.
You were explicitly expected to challenge the material using empirical findings, methodological critique, or testable alternative hypotheses. You did none of those. There are no credible sources used to support your counterclaims, no operational definitions, no evaluation of the study’s design, and no attempt to distinguish “I feel” from “the evidence shows.” The result reads as a refusal to participate in scholarly inquiry.
Until you can separate personal convictions from evidentiary argument, and demonstrate that separation in writing, you will continue to fail assignments of this type.
Even if it wasn't, it's still a secondary source at most throughout.
There are entire majors in theology.
I tried to get a Witch Doctor degree, but they discriminated against me for being Pagan. It's Big God keeping us down.
Hey, this is America. We elevate dipshits and persecute educated professionals.
Oh, hun. You didn’t even get your Bible topics correct. If you had turned this in at the most hateful, ignorant, backwards, antichrist church in Texas as a Sunday School assignment it still would have been a zero point paper. What was that quote at the end of Billy Madison?
That applies to this paper.
Man, God must have weak ass plans if only a few trans people can undo it.
Can't really blame her. The education system is everything but.
She shouldn't be in any university. This barely qualifies as high school literature. Can't expect an absolute buffoon of an amateur to perform well in the pro-league.
Seriously, what is this essay nonsense? I could have written something better in my second language in 5 minutes. Do you get graded on this crap at Uni in the US? Cause if so the American Education system is even worse off than I had already assumed.
It was probably intended to serve, at some level, as proof they'd read the article and to get students to organize their thoughts and opinions before a followup discussion.
I hope.
(If you just mean do you get graded on this crap referencing her actual essay... then, yes. You do get graded on it. And she got the proper grade.)
It's worse than you could possibly imagine. No, not anymore. I went back and finished a second degree last year for a small career shift, after about a 7 year gap after finishing the first (computer science).
The first time around I was kinda butthurt that most the material was crap I already knew from experience or saw online. But there was still a focus on the fundamentals and I desperately needed help with that. 7/10 experience. Still worthwhile, albeit a little expensive for the small value gained.
Second degree, mathematics. Because my company sucks and doesn't understand that computers and math are the same thing. Whatever,, I'm not paying for it let's do it, sister school to my old alma mater so relatively similar to what I'm expecting anyways. Didn't learn one thing new. No requirements for papers or anything beyond elementary school tier multiple choice work packets. No missed marks for poor syntax or grammar - because math isn't a language so kids don't need to be formal about it apparently. The only reason I passed is because I already knew the material. And considering the other students in my program, zero amount of learning occured. 2/10 literally the most pay 2 win experience I've ever taken part of or seen, and I played a mobile gatcha for two years. Two points because you do still factually win somewhat after paying, but we're very quickly approaching the point where one can't even do that.
Tl;Dr - after getting two degrees and seeing the situation firsthand twice now, I can confidently say that no degree from any modern US university is a valid proof of knowledge and skill. Every single one of them is either pay2win garbage, or nepobaby pay2win garbage. And I was tricked into getting two of them! I didn't even pay for the second one, and it was still a massive scam!
It sucks you had such a bad experience with your degrees, I’m going back for a second time to college and I feel like I’m learning a ton. My first experience sucked too, I don’t know if I just got insanely lucky this time around with college choice or what.
There’s nearly a 20 year gap between my first attempt and now, and I can definitely see a difference in the other students’ essay writing abilities compared to what I saw 20 years ago. I think part of that is that my high school English classes had large segments of class time devoted only to essay writing, and based on my conversations with younger students it sounds like there’s much less emphasis on that in high school education now.
I mean, this got her a 0. It's not considered a good essay even here.
This is why graduate student and teaching assistant unions exist. I'd dare this student to contest a zero on a paper that is flatout plagiarism.
Conservatives have no shame anymore, the biggest loser became president and all the other idiot losers saw they're opportunity to fail/grift upwards.
The Riley Gains effect = you can literally be a loser but claim you were oppressed and get attention, adulation, and money from all the other losers.
Honestly, posting all of this on Xitter looks like an own-goal by Turning Point, but you can tell they don't see it that way.
Iirc, she didn't even quote/cite the Bible
Edit: okay, she quoted it loosely. But didn't even give the reference- I put more effort into arguing with people on Lemmy!
Loosely, because that's probably all the familiarity she has with it.
I bet with some diligent searching someone could find a biblefaq type website from an ultraconservative organization that has a suspiciously similar answer to a question like "What does the Bible say about gender roles?"
About the same as most "good Christians"
LMAO
I don't think it was about quoting bible as much as it was about not answering the question ngl.
Also never quoted the Bible, just stayed their interpretation of it without referencing any specific scripture.
Also, no internal citations in the text, that's an instant zero on any college level essay.
The girl is a dumber than a sack of rocks, how did she ever get out of school?
She will probably get an honorary Doctor Of MAGA from Trump Looniversity.
Our new Director of Gender Enforcement
No child left behind.
Listen I'd fail for quoting the Bible in an essay about blood alcohol content even if I'm quoting the bits with Jesus being so schnackered his blood is wine
An attempt was made. It's clear that at least the student read the article from the assignment, and turned something in. The fact that it doesn't answer the question and is generally substanceless from an academic standpoint is where the points should be deducted from.
A zero is probably too harsh. I would grade it as a fail, but give the student extra time to submit a revised version. Using the professor's grading scale, that would be a 5 for #1 (she did read the article and her reaction to it had some tie-in to the subject material, it was just insufficient), a 0 for #2 (She avoided summarizing, but failed to provide a "thoughful reaction or response", as most of her writing was merely dismissive and not constructive) and a 5 for #3 (It was clearly written, I'll give her that much). So 10 points out of 25 total, or 40%, which is a fail.
I think this student would be happier in seminary school, not university.
She wouldn't be happier in seminary school, she'd be happier as a right-wing influencer. That's what this is all about. Her mom is a lawyer that defended people involved with the January 6th insurrection. She had contacted right-wing media before she appealed the grade with the University.
She's not smart enough to write above a fifth grade level but she's smart enough to get in on the grift. This is getting her name out there and this will not be the last we hear from this woman.
Edit: Ask yourself what a "devout Christian" that only believes in two genders was even doing taking a gender studies course in the first place? It was all planned.
She would have still received a 0 because of the 10 point deduction for not meeting the minimum word count. The requirement was 650 words and her word count was 630.
Oh, I completely forgot about that. You're right, that 10 point deduction would have caused the grade to fall to exactly 0.
I was trying to be magnanimous, but ultimately I think both professors have the right of it. This student never intended to participate in the class in good faith - the barbed submission was intentionally baiting out a failing grade and negative response from the professor so that it could be used as fuel for the political culture war.
She is clearly fine with everyone making fun of her and teasing her about how backwards she is.
And please don't hold back out of politeness, you insincere coward.
Amen! 🙏
Someone put the parameters and her work into grok … grok fail her.
While I think this is important. She’s just gonna go start some Hawk Tuah podcast from all the PR
Thr way she graded her assignment was chefs kiss
First of all, the term "reaction paper" is quite vague to me. I understand it's a thing now to "react" to content, facts, but the verb, to react, implies very little critical thinking. I think this is one of those concepts brought by the content creator trend to enhance the amount of engagement and earnings by producing derivative and lazy content.
Being said that, yes. If you attend a scientific class, you can't argue based on your personal beliefs only. Religious, biblical truths don't have any special weight here. It's quite shocking that this can happen at a university level, and that's why I'm absolutely opposed to non-secular education in general. Religion and education must always be separated.
A "reaction" isn't necessarily a brain rot veil for copyright infringement.
Who said that?
We had "reaction papers" when I went to college in the early 2000s, too. It's usually a weekly or daily assignment in a semi-online course to write a summary and reaction (or, to use a different word, response) to an article or paper. You'd then be expected to comment (critique) on one or two other responses posted by other students in the course. It was a way to encourage critical discussion and thinking on topics.
who do I contact to inquire about hopping to a new timeline? additionally, how much should I be expecting to pay for such a service?
I want out of this one :(
Is the article posted or am I dumb and overlooking it?
There's not really an article.
Turning Point OU tweeted screenshots of the assignment, the essay, and the professors' responses.
I transcribed them in the OP under spoiler accordions, to make them easier to read and so you're not blasted with the whole thing all at once.
Her paper would have been perfectly appropriate, if she was taking a Bible studies course. Definitely not appropriate for a psychology course though, unless faith was included in the topic of the article she was asked to read.
It wouldn't've even passed a bible studies course because she didn't even quote the bible.
Still then a problem as a Bible studies. Just vague expression of their belief without citing the Bible.
Before I read the rest of this sentence, I thought some goofy troll grading was going on, lol
I'm not surprised if the professor got fired even though i agree with them. I've had friends that were from OK and they talked about how religiously dogmatic that state and the colleges were. I know my one friend had to get the ACLU involved for discrimination he received for his sexuality from the university he attended. -I'm more surprised the professor was ever hired in the first place.
"God" is an idea of conquest and subjugation.
dafuq is a "reaction paper"?
A scientific critique would be something but a reaction paper?
These parameters seem extremely loose. Does the syllabus state stronger parameters?
I was opposed to the student's dumb opinion as far below academic standards I imagined for the course. Now that I see the expectations written, they seem low. Nowhere does the assignment demand "empirical evidence" that would be expected of "a scientific class" as the professor stated. Is this one of those unserious, filler electives students take just to fill general requirements outside their concentration?
Everyone has a reaction like they have an asshole. They asked for a "clearly written", "thoughtful reaction"1 discussing "some aspect of the article" and got one. Seems the assignment failed to set critical, rigorous standards. 🤷
I couldn't believe the assignment was this flawed, so I dug & found a more complete assignment statement. ::: spoiler Transcript
Lesson 3.3: Reaction Paper: Gender Typicality, Peer Relations, and Mental Health
This assignment was locked Nov 9 at 11:59pm.
You must write a 650 words (body of text), double-spaced reaction paper demonstrating that you read the assigned article, and includes a thoughtful reaction to the material presented in the article. Points will be deducted when papers are deficient in any of these areas. I will deduct 10 points if your paper is between 620 and 649 words, and I will not give credit for papers under 620 words. Papers not turned in by the deadline will not receive credit.
Please remember that your reaction paper should not be a summary, but rather a thoughtful discussion of some aspect of the article. Possible approaches to reaction papers include:
There are other possibilities as well. The best reaction papers illustrate that students have read the assigned materials and engaged in critical thinking about some aspect of the article.
Formatting requirements: 12-point Times New Roman or Calibri font, one-inch margins on all sides.
GRADING: Reaction papers are graded on a 25-point scale, and are evaluated based on the following:
ARTICLE LINK: Gender Typicality, Peer Relations, and Mental Health
Reaction Papers
Total Points: 25 ::: This matter would benefit from better transparency: course description, syllabus, lesson plan. We shouldn't have to trust TPUSA for any information.
Footnotes
thoughtful doesn't mean intelligent or good ↩
The way i interpreted the syllabus based on the example questions is that they wanted them to react to the article with how they "feel" about the topic and how it relates to them, and why. To me a passing response would follow the structure of "I feel this is/is not important for study because of x,y,z" supporting their stance, but their response was "I think/believe x,y,z, therefor we shouldn't study the topic."
One is a supported opinion that can be openly discussed and debated.
The other is an unsubstantiated conclusion (belief) being used justify a hard decision on a topic, closing off any open discussion or debate, which is not the goal of the assignment.
I want to agree with you, however, an approach listed
seems to fit what the student did. They in so many words explain their feelings that the claims of the article are unworthy of study by stating an opinion based on backward dogma & distorted mythology. While I disagree with their position, my approval isn't a stipulation of the assignment, which barely has any.
Religious & dumbass opinions can & probably should be debated as has historically been done in a liberal arts & sciences education. We can absolutely challenge dumbass religiosity by arguing how it conflicts with open inquiry, science, and the rational pursuit of objective truth. Some might say challenging our thinking is the basic purpose of a liberal education program.
Unless more stringent stipulations for the course are written elsewhere that we missed, I think this is a failure to set stipulations appropriately.
Why does she look 40?
Just wait 'til the MAGA glowup!
cretinous loser, natural evangelist starts getting into fucky (8)
I mean... she responded to the article with her thoughts about it.. That was the assignment. There was nothing in the assignment about the reasoning they used to give her no points. The comments they made are all valid but, grade points wise... these were the stipulations:
Does the paper show a clear tie-in to the assigned article? (10 points) Does the paper present a thoughtful reaction or response to the article, rather than a summary? (10 points) Is the paper clearly written? (5 points)
She is a terrible person though. Sadly she will probably benefit greatly from this controversy.
The assignment was to respond in a way that showed she read it. She made 2 drive-by references to the paper before simply rejecting it out of hand and the talking about religion. I wouldnt really consider that doing the assignment at all. She might have well wrote a paper about gender roles in middle earth.
Also, when reading that rubric, we have to remember this was a developmental psychology class. (which is more on the stats and hard science side of the discipline) A 'clear tie in to the article' is going to be discussing the psychological aspects and effects of gender roles and related bullying, and (possibly) its normatizing effects. Not a tie in to gender roles and bullying itself.
And when the rubric asks for a "thoughtful reaction or response to the article, rather than a summary" its not asking for a surface level personal emotional / ideals reaction. Again, it is asking for an analysis of the psychology, and a reaction / response to how that compares to other psychological theories and concepts youve learned (one of which the Bible is not.... maybe if this were a phil class)
She could have rejected the concepts In the paper if she wanted, but done it citing psychology papers and theories. Im sure there are plenty of papers about successful gender conformity leading to increased satisfaction -males being happier when seen as more masculine by peers, bullying as a successful negative stimuli to more effectively train those behaviors which when sucessfully exhibited lead to that gender satisfaction, concepts of identity reinforcement through conformity, etc.
Again, 'clearly written' for a developmental psychology class means a lot more than sentence structure. Its going to involve making logical assertions and citing scientific or at least historical psychological texts, and doing so in a concise manner.
Personally, I think her paper should have gotten eitther somewhere between a 3-10/25 (1-3/10, 1-3/10, 2/5 for writing) (again hard to gauge exactly how far off the mark she was without knowing the article, or the level of rigor / leniency of the class
or, been returned ungraded as incomplete, simply stating it failed to address subject matter.
I mean, it's a rambling response totally divorced from the context of the field she's supposed to be studying, where she basically copied down her pastor's word salad on the topic, so I wouldn't qualify her response as anything like being thoughtful. The whole thing is a series of repetitive tangents that just abruptly end with her fundie non sequitur about how things would be better and problems would decrease if everyone just believed the same religious doctrine she does, a claim she makes with zero support. In light of this, I would struggle to call it clearly written. And it's only 629 words, which was an automatic 10 point drop.
So, even if I'm feeling charitable and say that it shows a clear tie-in to the article and merits being called a thoughtful reaction, she's still sitting at a 10/25 as soon as you dock 10 points for her inability to use a word count function in her word processor and the 5 points for being so terribly structured and written that I feel bad for having read it.
And if I were to say I feel even more charitable, and credit her with crushing all 3 criteria given in the assignment and earning full marks on the merits of her paper, she still has a 15/25, aka a failing grade, as soon as the professor sees she didn't hit the word count.
What bugs me is when people say she cited the Bible. No she didn't, she just stated her personal beliefs. Citing the Bible would be making the claim and then putting in brackets, the book chapter and verse it comes from. It still wouldn't be an appropriate source to use in a science class but she could have at least properly cited it
Plastic face looking lady.
*Christian
Let's take a step back and look at the assignment itself.
Given how terrible the assignment was, just about anything should pass as long as it's clear the student read the article and thought about it. Even if their writing is shitty, that's only 5 points.
Did she demonstrate that she read the article? I guess so. She didn't quote from it, and only talked about a couple of aspects, like teasing as a way to enforce gender norms, and that encouraging diverse gender expressions could improve students' responses. But, if that's what's in the article, she clearly demonstrated that she did read the article. I don't know what a 10/10 would be in "show a clear tie-in", given that it's only a 650 word essay and you're told not to summarize. But, it seems pretty clear she read it and that she wrote about what's in the thing she read, so 8/10.
Did she write a thoughtful reaction to what she read, rather than a summary? Well, yeah. She didn't summarize the article at all. You can argue how thoughtful her response was, but she engaged with the ideas in the article and reacted to them, just as she was asked to do. If thoughtful means "did you question your own beliefs", then it wasn't thoughtful. But, if thoughtful means "did you read the article and have thoughts, which you expressed", then yes. 7/10.
Is the paper clearly written? It's pretty shitty writing, 2/5. Luckily for her, how well it's written is only 5/25 points.
So, 17/25 points for a shitty essay which, nevertheless, fully meets the requirements for a shitty assignment.
Her paper is dog shit, but thank you for calling out this dog shit rubric for a flawed assignment. I'm old now, but I wouldn't have been able to guess the bar would stoop so low. Scares the fuck out of me that this is what passes for an education.
I fully agree that her paper is shitty. But, the ways in which it's shitty aren't criteria for the assignment, other than the bit about "is the paper clearly written". I'd hate to give a hateful girl who did such sloppy work a passing grade, but I can't see how you can claim her shitty writing didn't mostly meet the criteria as listed.
IMO a reasonable grading rubric would be something like:
Both teachers make comments saying something like "you are being asked to support your ideas with empirical evidence". If that's true, it certainly wasn't in the instructions the students were given. They were only asked for a "thoughtful reaction or response". You could twist the idea that "thoughtful" is supposed to mean "supported by empirical, scientific evidence", but it really doesn't sound like that was the assignment at all. Maybe if every other assignment had been graded that way, and it was well known that a "reaction paper" had to use scientific evidence, and that "thoughtful" meant "carefully citing scientific evidence", but as it is, it just looks like a really shitty paper that nevertheless meets the requirements of a really sloppy assignment.
Yup. Shitty assignment. Shitty paper.
However the teacher in question gave her a 0.
She would have gotten the same grade if she didn't turn anything in at all.
That doesn't seem correct.
Teachers don't "give” grades, students earn them. If the teacher felt that the paper didn't meet the criteria, they should score it appropriately and provide context/reasoning.
A score of 0 feels "given”.
Fair point, but i dont think it's entirely unreasonable to use class syllabus + guidance from lectures as part of the grading criteria. The professor makes references to the goals of the class itself to justify the grade, so we as 3rd party observers cant be too critical as we're missing important context.
While this does fit this community's subject broadly this does not feel like a discussion that should have a place anywhere.
A student did a righteous dum-dum. Some people use it to further their political goals. There is zero meat on this story.
Politically motivated hit job on a trans teacher by TPUSA that actually worked and got them suspended is all meat. Read about Federalist Society. In the 80s conservatives realized that they don't have much control over the judiciary so they created it to organize and train future judges. Backed by millionaires it quickly grew in power and today 5 of Supreme Court judges are current of former Federalist Society members. In just 40 years Supreme Court has been totally compromised and Republicans have full control of the judiciary now.
This story is about the right using the same tactic to take over education. They realized universities are one of the last bastions of progressive thought, funded far-right organization, poured millions of dollars from right wing donors into it and after only 10 years are able to remove teachers from seemingly secular organization based on religious beliefs. Give them another 10-20 years and all progressive ideas will be eradicated from higher education. The fact that this story is not getting more attention shows how complicit the politicians, media and universities themselves are. The plan is working perfectly and ignorant people are actually complaining that we're even talking about it.
There is nothing indicating success that I spotted.