University of Oklahoma Student Is Justifiably Shocked at Sudden Expectation She Be a Good Writer
What the controversy over a failing grade for a bad essay reveals about the true purpose of higher education.
A seemingly trivial dispute over whether a University of Oklahoma student deservedly received a failing grade for a psychology class assignment has improbably become a national civil rights controversy.
Samantha Fulnecky, a pre-med student in her junior year, received zero out of 25 possible points for a short essay in which she defended traditional gender roles with heavy reference to the Bible and her Christian faith.
Fulnecky responded to her grade by accusing her instructors of discriminating against her for her religious faith.
The campus' Turning Point USA chapter helped to amplify her claims of discrimination on social media, which has since prompted an official university investigation into the affair, a public response from Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (who called Fulnecky's accusations "deeply concerning"), and media coverage everywhere from the New York Post to The New York Times.
The instructor who failed her has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the university's investigation.
This all has naturally created a backlash on social media from critics who point out that Fulnecky's essay is poorly written and poorly argued, that she deserved zero points, and that the university is engaged in the exact kind of overwrought student coddling that conservatives often criticize higher education for.
One would be forgiven for dismissing the whole affair as another overblown campus outrage story that doesn't deserve the attention it received.
While granting that a minor dispute about the justice of a failing grade did not need to become a national media controversy, the fight over Fulnecky's paper does reveal a lot about the sad state of higher education.
On a high level, Fulnecky has cause to think that she's been unfairly treated, although largely for reasons that she should not find particularly flattering.
While her essay was badly written, it seems to have met the minimal requirements of the busy work assignment she was given.
Her class was told to read a study about differing rates of bullying among middle schoolers based on their "gender typicality" and then write a short essay demonstrating that they'd read the material.
These essays were also supposed to include a "thoughtful" reaction to the paper. Yet the provided examples of what would count as a thoughtful reaction—either a discussion of why the study topic was important or an application of the study's findings to one's own personal experience—don't suggest the instructors were looking for high-level academic responses.
Students were asked to turn in an essay about their own subjective views or experiences on bullying and gender roles, and Fulnecky did just that.
Had she not argued that teasing people to enforce Biblical gender roles was good, she probably would have gotten a higher grade.
Certainly, the comments from Fulnecky's instructors leave the impression that she was graded more harshly because of the substance of her views. One told her she needed to practice more empathy and marshal more evidence in favor of her views if she was going to oppose the scientific consensus that "biologically and psychologically, sex and gender is neither binary nor fixed."
Critics who argue that Fulnecky's essay is below the minimal standards expected of college-level writing clearly are out of step with how far standards have fallen in higher education.
Academic studies and the endless testimony of individual professors both describe a growing phenomenon of college students showing up on campus with almost no ability to read books, comprehend even modestly complex texts, or even do basic math.
Grade inflation is a well-documented phenomenon everywhere from big state schools to the Ivy League.
George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan argues in his book The Case Against Education that college is just not about obtaining valuable knowledge and skills anymore. Students want a piece of paper that signals they are modestly more employable than someone without a college degree. Universities want an uninterrupted flow of subsidized student loan dollars.
Neither motivation lends itself to high academic standards.
People aren't wrong to think that Fulnecky, a college junior and pre-med student to boot, should be a better writer. But being a good writer was never a standard she's ever been asked to meet. One can forgive her for feeling stung that she's suddenly being asked to be a good writer now.
If Fulnecky deserved a zero for her limited writing abilities, so do countless other university students who will easily pass their classes.
Indeed, to the degree that university is just about signaling now, Fulnecky's essay could be considered a model college paper.
She successfully turned a failing grade on a minor assignment into a national controversy with her as the sympathetic star. That's an excellent signal to the wider universe of employers in the conservative media and activism spaces that she's an eminently hirable young talent.
Her essay wasn't good. But Fulnecky clearly groks that producing good writing is not why she's in college.
Her critics are ultimately the ones missing the point of how higher education is supposed to work now.
