There Are No Girls on the Internet - This Univ. of Oklahoma Essay is So Bad It Launched a Culture-War Career

Episode Date: December 10, 2025

In a psychology course at University of Oklahoma, junior Samantha Fulnecky was assigned to write a short essay responding to a research paper about social enforcement of gender typicality and children's mental health. Rather than engage with the assignment, she wrote a moralistic screed about demons and God's plan for women to be helpers, citing unspecified parts of "the Bible." Her paper received a zero, but she has become a cause celebre among right-wing culture warriors thanks to the late Charlie Kirk’s Turning Points USA, who view her as a righteous victim being persecuted for her faith. Bridget and Producer Mike have both graded their share of college papers, so they weigh in on the fairness of her grade, and unpack what's really going on (spoiler: it's a stunt).    If you’re listening on Spotify, you can leave a comment there to let us know what you think, or email us at [e-mail]    Follow Bridget and TANGOTI on social media!  ||  instagram.com/bridgetmarieindc/ || tiktok.com/@bridgetmarieindc ||  youtube.com/@ThereAreNoGirlsOnTheInternet || bsky.app/profile/tangoti.bsky.social   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer, Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter.

Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting. Think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than adds supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHeart's twice as large as the next two combined. Learn how podcasting can help your business. Call

844-844-I-Hart. Life is full of hurdles. So how do you keep going? On Hurtle with Emily Abadi, we're talking with the most inspiring women in sports and wellness from professional athletes, and Olympic champions about the challenges that shape them and the mindset that keeps them moving forward. At our level, at this scale, being able to fail in front of the entire world. Like, I can do anything. I can do anything. Listen to Hurtle with Emily Abadi on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcasts. Presented by Capital One, founding partner of IHart Women's Sports. Last night, a blown call changed a game. This morning, the internet lost its mind. And nobody's telling you exactly what happened. That's where Sports Slice comes in. I'm Timbo, and every episode, we're cutting through the noise, breaking down the biggest moments in sports and giving you the real story behind the headline. And we're going straight to the source, the athletes themselves, their locker room stories, their reactions in the moment, and the stuff nobody gets to hear.

Listen to Sports Slice on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more, follow Timbo Sliced Life 12 in the TikTok podcast network on TikTok. Hi, everyone. I'm Cheryl Strait, author of Wild and Tiny Beautiful Things. I'm excited to share that I have a new podcast called Mind Over Mountain. In each episode, I interview athletes, adventurers, and adrenaline seekers to discuss the inner landscapes that informed and inspired their extraordinary feats. So we too can better understand how to face our own seemingly insurmountable challenges.

Listen to Mind Over Mountain every Thursday on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. There Are No Girls on the Internet as a production of IHeart Radio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Todd, and this is There Are No Girls on the Internet. As a former educator, we have got to talk about what's happening at the University of Oklahoma right now. So in this episode, we'll start with why I think we're uniquely qualified to weigh in. You'll hear the full Bible-based paper whose failing grade was heard around the country and our thoughts on it, kind of treating it as a good faith assignment,

but also what I think the entire thing is one big scam. So let's get into it. Mike, you and I both have backgrounds as educators. That's right. When I was in grad school for all of eight years, I funded myself for much of that time through teaching assistantship. So I got to teach a couple of courses in psychology at a big university in the Midwest. So in some respects, similar to Oklahoma,

but in others pretty different. Yes, I also TA'd my way through graduate school, but then I started adjuncting. Did you ever do any adjuncting? I never did any adjuncting, but honestly I have been thinking about it lately. I kind of like miss teaching. And so this story, when you brought it up,

kind of spoke to me, I guess. I was like hungry to think about teaching. Same. By not adjuncting, you missed out on making like a whopping $2,000 a year. It was not well done. paid work. That is my sense of it. Yeah.

I guess talk to me again after I do it. But, you know, I wouldn't necessarily be doing it for the money, but just to, I don't know, there's something exciting and fun about talking with students. And often they show up with so much enthusiasm and genuine interest in learning. I don't know. Maybe I'm just really romanticizing something that I haven't actually done in well over 10 years. No, no, no, no. I completely agree. I absolutely loved my time in the classroom. I had a personalized license plate that said love to teach or live to teach, depending on how you read it. And yeah, I was that person who I, there was an energy and an excitement from being around young learners that I have not felt replicated any place else in my career. So yeah, I started out TAing in grad school. I adjuncted. I taught writing courses all over D.C., Maryland and Virginia. including two different religious universities, a Catholic university, and a seven-day Adventist

University. So I have graded in a few papers that reference the Bible in my day. I got my job as a full-time instructor at Howard University here in D.C., go h.U., where I taught for many years. I was also on what they call then the enrichment committee, which was sort of a cohort of instructors that basically had to stay abreast of the newest teaching methods to train other teachers to make sure that they were, you know, doing it the best way they could. So we both have spent, you know, done our hours in front of the classroom. Yeah, I actually got some teaching experience as an undergraduate. Me and a couple friends started a student club at Northeastern University to teach English as a second language to the, some of the staff.

on campus who were like janitorial or cafeteria workers who had recently come to Boston from other countries and didn't speak English. So that was a really fun and also challenging experience. And then when I got to Wisconsin for grad school, I TA'd several seminars, a couple big lectures, a couple smaller seminars, similar to the type of course that we're going to talk about in a little bit here where it's like not an intro level course, but like what I would call a 200 level course, where you have to have taken like one or more super basic intro to psych courses to then be eligible to take something a little bit further into a specific topic,

like, for example, psychology over the lifespan and how that changes. And those courses were always really fun to teach because they were focused enough that They have a particular topic. They're not trying to cover all of psychology, but they're open-ended enough and introductory enough that you get to cover a lot of different things. Well, here's the real question. In your time teaching, did you fail students?

I did fail a few, yeah. Not very many because University of Wisconsin is a very good school. It's tough to get in. All of the students coming in were high-quality students, very good, not all, of them were great writers, but even still, we had some who would fail. And most of the time, if I think about, you know, the few students who still haunt my nightmares, it was just because

they didn't show up. They didn't do the work. But there were also grade grubbers who were like right on the borderline. I can still remember this one woman who, uh, was just really dissatisfied with the grade she got on a paper and came to office hours. And I guess thought that like just continuing to to stand her ground in my office and refusing to leave was somehow going to change her grade, but it did not. Not a grade rubbing fit in. Yeah. So yeah, I did have to fail some students, not very often, but occasionally.

And I didn't feel good, particularly in those rare cases where the student really had tried, but perhaps psychology was just not for them. How about you? Did you ever fail students? You were probably like, you're so nice. You're probably a real pushover. Oh, I may come off as a sweetie pie on this show, but I was known as kind of a hard ass in the classroom. That's what my rate my professor said about me anyway. And I asked about you failing students because I've not been in the classroom for a while. I don't know that it's acceptable to fail students, even students who deserve a failing grade anymore. I was doing all my teaching pre-COVID. My understanding is that things have really changed instruction-wise since then. But when I was in the classroom, I really saw failing students who did who did not deserve a passing grade as a kind of kindness,

like a tough love, right? It is not kind or fair to just pass a student off to another level that they might not be ready for, just in the hopes that like another professor will sort it out, especially for a writing class. I was teaching writing classes. Students need to know how to passively write if they are going to be adequately prepared to finish college and get a job, right? We had resources. I was a resource. I had office hours. We had the writing center. You know, sometimes through the course of working together, students might realize that they need them kind of that accommodation, so we would work with them if that was the case. But ultimately, somebody who is not demonstrated an ability to write passably should not just get passed along to the next class. They should have to try again. And I'm so sorry, but that is a failing grade. With the big caveat that nobody in my class was ever surprised that they were failing, if you were even

a little bit at risk of failing, you were not just finding that out when you got the failing grade, right? You had to sort of almost really work at it to get a failing grade. You would have had to disregard a lot of come to Jesus conversations. If you were surprised to be receiving an F

in my class, you either were not paying attention or just like genuinely did not care or like never showed up. There had to be something else going on. Nobody got an F who was like, oh, what do you mean an F? Everybody knew what the deal was by the time I got that grade. You bring up a good point that I think a lot of universities, particularly like public universities, do have a lot of resources for students who are trying to learn to write and otherwise having trouble writing.

I was TAing psychology courses and some of them were more stats focused, but the majority of them were content focused. And even though it's psychology, it's all writing. Like, writing is the most fundamental skill for so many things. And absolutely, I think you were doing those students a kindness by not just passing them to go to a higher level that they weren't ready for. Absolutely, people need to know how to write, especially if they're going to go into psychology or one of the social sciences where, like, writing is what you do, that the product is written works. Yes.

So as two people who have failed our fair share students over our teaching careers, I feel like we are qualified to in on what's happening in Oklahoma. So here is what's going on. Samantha Fulnecki is a junior at University of Oklahoma. She turned in an assignment for a class called Lifespan Development in the psychology department. The course catalog described it as a survey of psychological changes across the lifespan, the changes in cognitive, social, emotional, and physiological development from conception to death. We took a look at the course catalog. Mike, from being a psychologist and somebody who was in this space. You said it, I assumed it was a higher level course,

but you said it was sort of like a mid-range course. Yeah, it's listed at the 2000 level, which I'm familiar with class as being like a 100 level is an introductory course. 200 level is open to freshmen sophomores who have completed their introduction to psychology course so that they can have some basic foundations on which to start learning about different topic areas.

And so that's what this seemed to be, one of those courses that there was only one prerequisite listed, which was introduction to psychology. So what I assume is happening here, I'm not certain, but I assume that this was a course open to sophomores, freshmen, who had taken intro to psychology and wanted to take additional psychology courses about topics. So not a high-level course, but one that people would take pretty early on, their college career is my sense based on looking at the course cabalon. And according to OU Daily, Samantha is a psychology major. So this is, while it's not a high-level course, it's not an introductory course,

and it's a course that is in her field of study, in her major. Yes, that's what it seems to be the case. He seems to be wanting to be a psych major. Interestingly, at Wisconsin, you had to be a sophomore before you could declare to be a psych major. and you also had to pass this pretty grueling, intensive research seminar that was essentially like a filter course. So I don't know if they have anything similar to that at Oklahoma. Oh, you want to be a psych major?

How bad do you want it? Yeah, kind of. Because there's this phenomenon that, like, psychology, I mean, I'm a little bit biased, but it's just an inherently interesting domain, right? Like people are social. We think about other people. We think about ourselves. So a lot of the questions that psychology addresses are very accessible and familiar to lots of people.

And that's why people are interested in psychology. That's why we have so many like pop psychology books and little like BuzzFeed style quizzes about what type of person you are. Just an inherently interesting thing. And so it attracts a lot of students, which is great. You know, I think it's wonderful for people of all persuasions and walks of life. life to learn more about psychology. But it attracts a lot of people to the major, some of whom are serious about psychology as a discipline and a social science, others who are not and think that those short little BuzzFeed

quizzes are like the pinnacle of psych when in fact they are not. And the people who are taking it seriously are then going to go on to work through the courses, work their way up towards a degree that then they will use towards some vocation related to psychology, the people who are just approaching it as like interesting fluff that doesn't really require a whole lot of critical thought or taking time to understand the methods or understand the stats that are involved in learning things and having confidence in our conclusions, those folks should not be getting psychology degrees. They should just continue reading magazines. You got a weed at the duds.

Is that what you're saying? I mean, for their own good, like you said. You know, you don't want to give somebody a passing grade and send them onward when they don't have the skills to do what's currently in front of them. You don't want to just hand out psych degrees to anybody who wants them. I mean, if that's what you want, there are plenty of places where you can just buy a degree without putting in work online. During Trump's first term, he passed. a bunch of rules that made that even easier. But we need to get into that.

Like, if you want to buy a psych degree, you can. But if you want to get a psych degree from a respected university where it's going to mean something, you have to put in the work for it. It's not just a matter of like regurgitating the opinions that you showed up with on your first day of freshman year. Okay, so I want to get into that because you make a point that I want to come back to later

after we talk about what's going on. But for this lifespan psychology course, Junior Samantha was asked to write a 650-word essay reacting to a study that she was assigned to read about how people are perceived based on societal expectations of gender. I did a little digging and I found the study that she was meant to be responding to. It's called relations among gender typicality, pure relations and mental health during early adolescence. The abstract describes the study as examining whether being high in gender typicalities associated with popularity, whether it being low in gender typicality is associated. with rejection and teasing, and whether teasing due to low gender typicality mediates the association with negative mental health.

They looked at middle school children, 34 boys and 50 girls, described hypothetical, popular, and rejected or teased peers, and completed self-report measures about their own gender typicality experiences with gender-based teasing, depressive symptoms, anxiety, salt esteem, and body image. So it's a pretty, like, meaty study, and her task was to read the study and respond in what the instructor asked for to be a thoughtful reaction. These kind of things, I think, were typical in seminars that I was a teaching assistant for, where you'd have one or more readings each week,

and the students were asked to write a little thing responding to what they had read, where the goal was really to force them to demonstrate that they had read it at all, but also to force them to critically think about, the substance of what had been done in the study? Oh my gosh. I will get into this when we look at the rubric for how this essay was graded. But the way that in the assignment probably says three different times, three different ways, do not just summarize.

Do not just summarize. The fact that, I mean, I've been there, but the fact that this instructor had to essentially beg the students not to just summarize and demonstrate some sort of thoughtful analysis really. says a lot to me. Yeah. And it's, you know, it's, it can be hard, I think, for some students making the transition from high school to college to put something of their self into analysis. I think a lot of students can do quite well in high school, just, you know, painting by numbers, doing what they're supposed to do. And I think some students, when they get to college, struggle with the concept that, like, you're supposed to add some of your own insight analysis. perspective here, but do it in a way that is consistent with how we as a field of psychologists critique studies and use studies as evidence to inform conclusions. It can be tricky.

Yeah. Yeah. Let's take a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guide, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends, me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman. Help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and headwriter, Streeter Seidel,

help an a cappella band with their between songs banter. There's the worst singer in the group? The worst? Yeah. Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation. The group.

The yard birds, right? That's the name. The Harvard yard, but they're open. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle. age. One erection.

Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Humor me. I need some jokes to make me seem funny. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ads supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHearts twice as large as the next two, bind. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus, only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business.

Think Iheart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Call 844-Ehart to get started. That's 844-844-I-Hart. Last night, a blown call changed a game. This morning, the internet lost its mind. Highlights are trending, opinions are flying, and nobody's telling you exactly what happened. That's where Sports Slice comes in. I'm Timbo. Every episode we're cutting through the noise. Breaking down the plays, the controversies, and the stories behind the headlines. We go straight to the source, the athlete themselves. Their locker room stories, their reactions, the stuff nobody gets to hear. The laughs, the drama, the triumphs, the moments that never make the highlight real. From viral moments to historic games, from buzzer beaters to controversial calls, we break it down, give you context and ask the questions

everybody wants answered. Sports slice brings you closer to the action with stories told by the people who live them. Listen to Sports Slice on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more, follow Timbo Slical Life 12 in the TikTok podcast network on TikTok. Life throws hurdles big and small. The question is, how do you conquer them? On Hurtle with Emily Abadi, we sit down with the most inspiring women in sports and wellness, professional athletes, coaches, and Olympic champions to talk about the challenges that shaped them

and the mindset that keeps them going. from the WMBA standout Kate Martin and rising hockey star Layla Edwards. If a boy can do it, I don't see why a girl can't. Like, I've never understood that. Like, it didn't make sense in my brain. It's hard to be in spaces that no one looks like you, but don't ever feel like you don't belong. Don't let that be the reason you don't do it.

An Olympic champs, Gabby Thomas and Katie Ladecki. The ability to show a gold medal to someone and have their face light up and smile, that means the world to me. And that's what motivates me to win more gold medals. at our level at this scale, like being able to fail in front of the entire world. Like, I can do anything. I can do anything.

Because resilience isn't just about winning. It's about showing up, even when it's hard. Listen to Hurtle with Emily Abadi on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Presented by Capital One, founding partner of IHart Women's Sports. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. call it grotesque, others say it's unleashing human potential. Either

way, the podcast's Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the I-Hard Radio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. At our back. Okay, so I'm going to read the essay that Samantha turned in. It's not very long, I promise. 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 should say that is the one sentence that specifically engages with the source text.

In a reaction article, you got one sentence that describes anything specifically going on in the study that she's been asked to react to. 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 the same

we should live our lives with that in mind. 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 Arab society would be detrimental as it pulls us farther from God's original plan for humans. It is perfect. 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 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 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 Connegedo, and that directly translates to helper equal to. Additionally, God himself describes in the Bible using Ezer Connego 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, quote, following gender stereotypes, that I am happy to be following a stereotype that aligns with the gifts and abilities God gave me as a woman. 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 to just be whatever they want 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 just 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 than children if they were raised knowing that they do not belong to themselves, but they belong to the Lord. Overall, reading articles such as this one encourage me to one day raise my children knowing they have a heavenly father who loves them and cherishes them deeply and that having their identity firmly rooted in who he is will give them the satisfaction and acceptance that the world can never provide for them. My prayer for the world, and specifically for American society and youth, is that they would not believe the lies being spread from Satan that make them believe they are better off as another gender than what God made them.

I pray that they will feel God's love and acceptance as who he originally created them to be the end. So that's the essay. Thoughts. Yeah. I mean, I think essay is a good word for what it is. you know, it's, it really is responding to a lot of stuff that is just not present in the study at all. It's just an essay about her opinion based on, you know, her religious beliefs, which could be fine in a different course or context, but it doesn't engage with the substance of the study at all, right? And so this is a psychology course.

One of the main things about psychology is that we use evidence to inform theories. And like she doesn't engage with the study. She talks about how she doesn't see gender non-typicality as a problem. Okay, well, in the study, they measure it pretty concretely as negative mental health outcomes. They find that boys who have low gender typicality, have more negative mental health outcomes. So, like, that is a problem there. Maybe she doesn't care about that.

Maybe she thinks that's good that those boys are being, like, teased and feel bad about themselves as a way to enforce gender typicality on them. Maybe she hasn't thought about it that deeply. But she really just doesn't engage with the study much at all. You know, yeah, I don't know. Those are my initial reactions. think? I feel the same. When I first read her essay before reading the study that she was assigned to respond to, I was like, okay, well, she's sort of name checking what she read a few times.

That was before I realized what she was assigned to read and respond to was like an actual study. I am no longer convinced that she read the full study. I think that perhaps she read the abstract. But yeah, I'm no longer, since reading the actual study, that she was given to respond to, I've really changed my thinking around this. And, you know, she references the study, like name checks it twice, but doesn't talk about any specifics.

Truly, it would be like if I was given an assignment to write about the movie Wicked, and I turned in an article about how I don't like going to the movie theater. I don't like leaving my house. I don't like taking the train. Yeah. I don't like the prices. Like, it's not really, when you, when you read

the study, it's not really, it does not really engage with the study in any kind of meaningful way. The point here is that the study itself is not weighing in on the morality of being highly gender typical or not. It is attempting to measure the phenomenon among kids and measuring a mechanism by which it might be enforced through social norms, and other interpersonal dynamics, and then the mental health consequences of that. Like these are the things that psychology looks at. It measures constructs and proposes mechanistic theories

of how this construct affects this outcome. The stuff that she's talking about, you know, how kids should be and saying that like it's better, like better how, certainly not better for mental health. you know, if you can't, she doesn't even try to put her argument in the terms of something that could be psychologically measured. She just says that it's better from this morality position, which is a different thing. Well, that's what I'm saying. I think that she saw the title, read the abstract, perhaps skimmed it, and assumed this is a study that is all about the opinion that

you know, we should not be, that bullying is bad and that everybody should be, quote, whatever they want all the time or whatever. Like, I think that she just like, it's clear to me that she's making a lot of assumptions about what is actually in the study because I don't think she actually engaged with it in a real way. Yeah, she could have written her whole essay based on the title alone. Like, she didn't even need to read the abstract, let alone the study itself. And ultimately, that's what this thing was. It's not like the Nobel, committee really wanted to know this particular young woman's thoughts on the subject. This was an assignment for her to demonstrate to her teacher that she has learned some of

the material that has been covered in the class, learned about how she as a psych major is expected to talk about studies, talk about constructs, talk about behavior. And, you know, she really failed to do any of that. Well, she failed to do many of that and she got a failing grade because this paper got a zero out of possible 25 points. Here's what she had to say about it. I just did the assignment and turned it in. And I talked about the Bible in it. That is, I view all my opinions in the world through the Bible.

I gave my opinion. And not just my opinion, but that's like the Bible says that God created male and female. and anything that's not from God or glorifying to God is glorifying to the enemy. I have to say I am disappointed with how I've seen this story being framed. I've seen these headlines, like even she describes it as being failed for citing the Bible. That's not really correct because her paper doesn't specifically cite anything at all, really, biblical or otherwise. It's just her opinion and then kind of referencing the Bible and God's will more generally. of like the idea that she was failed for citing the Bible, she don't cite anything. Like,

that's just not true. I've seen that kind of parroted over and over again, not correct. Yeah, you can't just say the word God and be like, I've cited the Bible. No, you haven't. So the big question is, did this paper deserve that grade, zero out of 25 points? Now, I will own that I have what might be a bit of an unpopular opinion about this, but in my opinion, in it's a little bit difficult to say whether or not this paper deserved a zero. Obviously, this essay is not good, right? No one is I, it was not a good essay, not a passing essay. Turning in an essay that suggests that it's okay to bully trans kids is just like not a good

essay, full stop. But I've had to grade plenty of essays that espouse worldviews that I find abhorrent, right? Like you teach out of Catholic University, you're going to get some anti-choice essays that use the Bible to support their reasoning. I have graded dozens of papers like that. So the real question to me is not, is this a good paper or a bad paper? It's obviously a bad paper. That's not the question. The real question is, is this a failing paper along the criteria outlined in the rubric? Because as people who have been in the classroom and graded student papers, the most important thing in grading is the rubric. You've got to have an ironclad rubric that students get ahead of time

so that if a student complains or there is confusion about why they got a grade, just go back to the rubric and explain why, but also sort of defend yourself. Was that your experience in teaching writing assignments as well? Yeah, totally. And even more generally than that, I think it's good when expectations are very clear. Like, it's, yes, it is a cover your ass document so you can defend yourself against students who have complaints. but also it is like a fair good faith document to make sure we're all on the same page. We all have the same expectations.

Yeah. And yeah, you got you have to have a good rubric, good description of what students are being asked to do. So I have the grading rubric here. It gives a little bit of an outline of what of like the mechanics. It has to be 650 words. If it's less than that, it will not get credit. if it's past a deadline, it will not get credit. It says, please remember that your reaction paper should not be a summary,

but rather a thoughtful discussion of some aspect of the article. It lays out a couple of potential approaches to the reaction, you know, things like 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, an application of the study or results to observations about others' behaviors, linking the objectives or findings from the assigned article to other domains of development or other findings that we have read or discussed in class. But then it also says 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. Now, here is the important bit of that, the actual grading rubric scale. The scale is as followed. One, does the paper show a clear tie-in to the assigned article? 10 points. Two, does the paper present a thoughtful reaction or response to the article rather than a summary? 10 points.

Three, is the paper clearly written five points? I will say, after taking a look at this rubric, I was surprised that it was not the most specific. Now, it is entirely possible that there are other grading expectations that have been made clear in this class. For instance, perhaps the syllabus says that all written work needs to include citations. or maybe the instructor said that verbally in class. There can be no confusion about it unless you weren't listening. But just going from this rubric as written, I have to say I was a little bit surprised

to see that this grading rubric was not the most specific for a college course. What are your thoughts? I agree. I think also, you know, I think we're going to get to the instructor pretty soon, but the instructor is a graduate student themselves, right? And so they probably do not have extensive

experience teaching. And I would make a bet that after this experience of getting dragged through the national news, they will approach their grading rubrics with fresh eyes in the future and perhaps firm them up a little bit. But I agree with you. It's a little bit vague about what exactly is needed. And in fact, it does seem pretty permissible, like stepping back from exactly what it calls for. My overall takeaway from this is like, right, a 650 word thing that shows that you read the article and demonstrate some critical thought about it. I think that's really what's being asked for here.

But, you know, they list these eight separate possible approaches that might be taken. They say that other possibilities could exist as well. So it does give the sense that it is fairly open about how a student might complete this assignment. One thing that I do wonder about is, you know, at what point in the semester was this assignment done? Because it gives the sense of an assignment that is like every week,

students are going to be reading a paper and writing one of these little 650-word responses. And so if this happened late in the semester, it's kind of a different thing that happened early in the semester, if this is the first paper that somebody turned in, you know, I might grade it one way and then have a conversation with that student about like, you know, I gave you a decent grade here, but in the future, I'm going to be looking for XYZ just to get us aligned on what the expectations are.

But if it happened late in the semester, it makes me wonder, has this been a pattern all semester long where this student just turns in garbage after garbage and refuses to listen to feedback? I don't know if that's what's happening or not, but it does feel like it would be important context within that particular classroom before this whole thing blew up

and became national news. So Samantha does say that she turned, she's already had several assignments of this nature in this class and that she's done them all the same way and that she's never received a bad grade and that this was her first bad grade. I cannot vouch for that,

but that's what she said in an interview. And it does sort of, to me, seem to set up a very convenient pattern because the instructor who gave her this grade is trans. And I think that what Samantha is trying to suggest is that, oh, my instructor didn't have a problem when I turned in all these essays the exact same way. But when I turn in one where I say that, you know, being trans is demonic,

all of a sudden the instructor has a problem and gives me a zero. That's sort of what I think is being set up here. Again, I cannot speak to the truth of whether or not it is true that she has, that the student has turned in several papers the exact same way. But this is what she says. Huh. It is kind of hard to believe that like she's just been turning in psychology papers that are supposed to be critiquing and responding to studies.

And if she's just been turning them all in offering her moral opinions about how people should lead their lives without addressing the substance of any of the studies and she's been getting good grades for them the whole time, I find that a little difficult to believe. Same, same, same, same. What grade would you give this paper if somebody turns it in one of your psych classes? So again, it would matter

if it was the beginning of the semester or later on, but giving the student the benefit of the doubt, which I generally like to do until they give me reason not to, you know, I'd probably, I probably would have given her like a 10 or something like that. like it was the right length.

It addressed the topic. You know, I try to be generous again, giving the benefit of the doubt. You know, and it would also, I might call on her in class to share her opinion. Are you insane? You would give this student a platform. Like, I would have already been like,

this student is a problem. The way to deal with them is to not give them the attention that they are so clearly asking for. This is exactly the wrong kind of student to be like, oh, the floor is yours. Tell us why you feel this way. Well, then the part that would happen after that is that we would use the class to explain why this response is like not psychology and not what is being looked for in this type of assignment and really misses the entire point of what the study.

is trying to do. Oh, this is so I know exactly what you should do. Have it be a peer review day. Match her up with the student who you know is going to be like, cannot wait to tear this essay apart. And really, you know, that's, you got to, yeah, I'm with you on that. I'm with you on that.

Yeah, make it a learning opportunity. I don't know exactly what the right approach would be. But I don't know, but I guess I'm giving way too much credit because some of the stuff that we haven't got to yet, it doesn't seem like she's really acting in good faith here. More after a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite.

Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel help an acapella band with their between songs banter. There's the worst singer in the group.

The worst? Yeah. Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation. The group. The yard birds, right? That's the name.

The Harvard Yardt. They're open. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle aged. One erection. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

me. I need some jokes to make me seem funny. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ads supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus, only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business. Think IHeart.

Streaming, radio, and podcast. Let us show you at iHeartadvertising.com. That's iHeartadvertising.com. Last night, a blown call changed a game. This morning, the internet lost its mind. Highlights are trending, opinions are flying, and nobody's telling you exactly what happened. That's where Sports Slice comes in.

I'm Timbo. Every episode, we're cutting through the noise, breaking down the plays, the controversies, and the stories behind the headlines. We go straight to the source, the athlete themselves, their locker room stories, their reactions, the stuff nobody gets to hear. The laughs, the drama, the triumphs, the moments that never make the highlight real. From viral moments to historic games, from buzzer beaters to controversial calls, we break it down,

give you context, and ask the questions everybody wants answered. Sports Slice brings you closer to the action with stories told by the people who live them. Listen to Sports Slice on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more, follow Timbo Slic Life 12 and the TikTok podcast network on TikTok. Life throws hurdles big and small. Question is, how do you conquer them? On hurdle with Emily Abadi, we sit down with the most inspiring women in sports and wellness, professional athletes, coaches, and Olympic champions to talk about the challenges that shaped them and the mindset that keeps them going.

From the WNBA standout, Kate Martin and rising hockey star, Layla Edwards. If a boy can do it, I don't see why a girl can't. Like, I've never understood that. Like, it didn't make sense in my brain. It's hard to be in spaces that no one looks like you, but don't ever feel like you don't feel like you don't belong. Don't let that be the reason you don't do it. An Olympic champs Gabby Thomas and Katie Ledecki. The ability to show a gold medal to someone and have their face light up and smile, that means the world to me.

And that's what motivates me to win more gold medals. At our level, at this scale, like being able to fail in front of the entire world. Like, I can do anything. I can do anything. Because resilience isn't just about winning. It's about showing up, even when it's hard. Listen to Hurtle with Emily Abadi on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast. for wherever you get your podcasts.

Presented by Capital One, founding partner of IHeart Women's Sports. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast's superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds.

I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the IHard Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's get right back into it. We've been talking about this just because we're educators from a perspective of like, if a student had meaningfully turned this essay in good faith, spoiler alert, I do not believe that's what's going on here. But just for the sake of argument, let's talk about it in that, is if that's what's going on. Yeah, yeah. So what grade would you have given if this was just a run-of-the-mill good faith student turns this in?

I could go as high as eight out of 25. I could see 10, and I still have lots of friends who are in academia, who are, you know, lecturers and adjuncts and instructors. I asked around, generally, it fell somewhere between like three and 10. 10 was the highest grade anybody was willing to go, which is still a failing grade. I could probably go as high as eight on this. However, in my class, a zero is for somebody who didn't turn something in, plagiarized, or had some other kind of like big problem. If you, a zero is for no effort made.

This is a failing paper to be sure, but in my class, I don't think I would have given in a zero. Honestly, this probably would have been a, a see me situation. Again, it sort of does go back to your point of like when in the semester that this happened, you know, I could see. being like, if this is how you feel, you need to go back and actually meaningfully engage with the source text to support what you're saying. Yeah, or like, rewrite this and turn it in and I'll grade that or something. Yes. And I will say, a lot of people online have been saying how this is just not a well-written assignment. How could somebody who was a junior at a university turn work like this in? I am sad to say it is not wildly out of staff with the kinds of assignments.

that instructors are used to seeing. The Chronicle of Higher Education spoke to Oliver Treldi, an assistant professor at the Institute of American Constitutional Thought and Leadership at the University of Toledo, who said that while lots of people were completely shocked at the quality of the writing here, if you grade a lot of papers, it is not at a shocking level. It is kind of at that level that although it's lower than what you want

and certainly lower than average, it's the sort of paper that you're used to seeing, which is kind of sad but, true. And I think one of the issues that is getting sort of lost in a sauce of the obvious culture war issue being stoked here is that reality that that kind of writing that students are turning in. This is not shockingly bad. This is probably like baseline. And like shouldn't we be talking about that? Shouldn't that be a concern, a cause for concern? Seriously, you did a nice job reading it, kind of smoothing over some of grammatical errors. Yes. As you

just riddled with grammatical errors. There's no other way to say that. So, because the instructor of this class is trans, what is obviously being set up here is that the instructor was just personally offended by what Samantha wrote, and that's what her bad grade was all about. However, in the feedback that the instructor left for Samantha, they don't say this at all. So the instructor of this class, Mel Kerth, who was a decorated instructor who had just won the outstanding graduate teaching award from O.E's Department of Psychology, who also happens to be trans, gave Samantha the grade, they left what I would consider to be pretty thoughtful feedback. In this feedback to Fulnecke, the instructor insisted that they were not panelizing the student

for her personal beliefs, but wrote, quote, 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, et cetera, is not best practice. They also implored the student

to apply some more perspective and empathy in her work and told her that, quote, calling an entire group of people demonic is highly offensive, especially a minorized population. I will say, shout out to this instructor because the feat they gave,

like, I'm only even reading just a segment of it, but the feet that they gave, again, I think really engaged with what was written in good faith. Nowhere in the feedback was it like, you obviously hate trans people like me, and that's why you're failing. I think, you know, saying, if this is how you feel, you need to come with some, you know, some hypothesis or empirical findings to support or challenge what you don't agree with in this piece. And like laying out a pathway to do that, as you said. And so the idea that I don't think that an instructor who was just super sensitive and offended by what was written would give such thoughtful, substantive feedback on an essay like this, if that's truly what was going on.

Yeah, it does seem like the instructor really tried to provide guidance about why the student received a failing grade here, what they could have done differently to get a better grade. And, yeah, it seems like the student really needs to hear that in a big way. Yes. And so it sounds like when a student gets a failing grade and has a complaint about that, another instructor gives a second set of eyes to make sure that grade was warranted. So another instructor for this course, Megan Waldron, who is not trans, said that they took a look at it and concurred with the initial F grade, saying that Samantha's essay, quote, should not be considered as a completion of the assignment. Similarly, gave feedback to Samantha that said, hey, be more thoughtful and cite some sort of empirical evidence.

It's not just your opinions on God to buttress the arguments that you're making in your piece. So two different instructors now have given, I would say, like very good, thoughtful feedback on what went wrong and how to make sure that it doesn't happen again for this kind of assignment. Yeah. Cite some empirical evidence. That's the whole thing. This is not religious studies. This is psychology. cite some empirical evidence, either from the study that you're supposed to be responding to,

talk about some of their data or methods, or bring in some other studies that maybe support what you're saying in some kind of way where they have measured something, cite some empirical evidence. That's good practice. And really, it's good practice for everybody in all sorts of disciplines. Oh, man, this is a bit of it on Sequitur, but I, don't know if you felt this way when you were teaching. One of my favorite kind of students to teach was like smart asses. And I used to have as part of my syllabus, like one of the assignments that you had to do was a, had a public speaking component. So you had to sort of present findings on a topic of your choice and then support it with research that you did as part of a research project. And one of my students, the topic of their public speaking assignment was why they did not think it was. It was. was fair to have a public speaking component of a writing class.

And damned if they had not gotten very good research, like they were able to cite each argument. And I felt personally called out, but I was very proud. I was like, damn, he really went through a lot of trouble to find empirical sources that are like, here's why expressing yourself verbally in front of the class should not be a component of a writing class. And he got an A. So I didn't happen to agree with it, but he did a great job of presenting the argument

and backing it up with data and research, my hands were tied. There you go, yeah. Good on you for not giving him a zero because you disagreed with what he was saying as this student, as alleging was done here. I mean, when you're, when you're an instructor, you get all kinds of students semester after semester, you see all kinds of assignments.

The idea that this would have been the first time that a trans instructor has maybe seen an essay from a student that was, to put it mildly, not the most empathetic toward the trans community, I highly, highly doubt that this was the first time that instructor received an essay like this.

And so I think this idea that, oh, this instructor was just super sensitive and couldn't handle it and got offended. That's so out of stuff with how minorized people live their lives. People always think, like, oh, this is the first time that they've encountered this kind of attitude.

And it's like, no, actually it's a dime a dozen. and we're encountering shit like this all the time and have to just roll with it if we want to have careers actually. You're not special. You're not unique. Like, truly, come on. Yeah, you think this is the first time that they encountered some anti-trans sentiment?

No. So needless to say, Samantha was not happy to get a zero on her assignment. Now, according to the academic grade policy at University of Oklahoma, an appeal can only be considered after the student has made an unsuccessful attempt to resolve differences with the instructor. According to reporting from the Oklahoman, Samantha disputed this grade with the graduate instructor and was still denied credit for the assignment.

So she filed a formal claim of a legal discrimination based on religious beliefs. And according to the New York Times, just hours after the instructor refused to raise her grade, Samantha emailed the governor of Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma President Joe Harris Jr., her college's dean, news outlets, and the Teacher Freedom Alliance led by the former states, led by former Oklahoma Superintendent Ryan Walters, who, if that name sounds familiar to you, we've spoken about him before. He is the person who demanded that all schools teach the Bible and that all teachers who are not from Oklahoma

pass a screening test to ward off, quote, woke indoctrination. She emailed all of these people within hours of this instructor declining to give a different grade. Her paper was then published in full on the social media account of the University of Oklahoma chapter of, of Turning Points USA, the organization started by the late Charlie Kirk, saying that she cited the Bible as her only source, but really did not seem to grapple much with the content of the original source material. This I actually found very funny because I was looking at the social media posts about this from Turning Points USA, and they were really posting that paper like a gotcha. Like they thought Samantha ate with that paper.

Does this paper deserve an F? And what's funny is that in like writing teacher pedagogy circles, it's like, oh, yeah, and actually, the essay actually sparked a conversation about how bad student writing has gotten. And really, like, that is perhaps the most shocking thing of this entire story to me that that she was willing to publish that paper online and thought that it would make her look good in some way. It's so bad. Like, it makes her look like she writes like a middle schooler because that is the level at which she writes. So in a response on social media, the University of Oklahoma said that it is launching an investigation.

They also said that Fulneki would not suffer any academic harm from the grade. I don't know exactly what that means, but I think what they're saying is like, I don't know if they're saying this grade on this one assignment is going to be thrown out, or if she's not at risk of failing the class, so it's not going to impact her GPA. I'm not totally sure what that means. But to me, it kind of seems like, even though this investigation has not been completed, it kind of sounds to me like she's sort of already won. They already decided that she's not going to have to actually, you know,

endure this grade that she got. Yeah, that is what it sounds like. I mean, I'm sure the university just wants to move on from this. And like perhaps she's won this battle of not receiving a failing mark on this paper that's going to drag down her grade. But I do feel like she's losing the larger war by having that thing posted on the internet for all of time as riddled as it is with grammatical errors, logical fallacies, vapidness. Yes. So I have to say the instructor, Mel, is being put on leave during the investigation

and is essentially not coming back to finish out the semester. I have not seen a lot of people reporting on just how disruptive this could potentially be to somebody who was also in graduate school. A lot of times, as you and I both did, the way that grad students pay for, for school is through teaching. And if an instructor is not teaching, they might not be able to pay for their classes so it could potentially derail their coursework. So being put on leave as a graduate student

and an instructor is no small thing. It could really have a negative impact on this person's schooling and this education that they are entitled to. I do really feel bad for the instructor here because grad school is also very stressful. You know, you're trying to teach. Probably this might not even be the,

the only course that this instructor is teaching this semester and also trying to do their own coursework and also trying to do research towards their dissertation. It's just a stressful, difficult time. Also, you're broke through the entire thing. So having this kind of big national, I don't know, news story where you've got Turning Point USA rallying the anti-trans mob online to come down on this instructor in their whole department.

I really feel for the instructor. Me too. And I guess that's my big point is that I don't believe this. But let's say for the sake of argument that this instructor, the paper deserved a higher grade that it got. This instructor got it wrong, should have gotten a higher grade. is that the kind of thing that deserves a national outcry? Is that situation made better for anybody other than the student to have that be something that is completely blown up where national figures are weighing in and it becomes a flashpoint?

I would argue no. I mean, and I think that's what extremists and culture warriors like people associated with Turning Points USA want. So Turning Points USA, which we know was formed by the late Trump. Charlie Kirk has been all over this. They put out a very hateful statement, misgendering the instructor, Mel Kirth, of course, calling for them to be fired. Because this instructor is trans, the way it's being talked about in these conservative media circles, it's probably pretty unshocking. This trans educator is trampling a student's freedom of speech for being Christian. We have lawmakers weighing in.

Kevin Stitt, the governor of Oklahoma, described the situation as deeply concerning, and is calling on the university. of Oklahoma Regents to review the investigation to ensure that other students are not unfairly penalized for their beliefs. Mind you, I don't think this person was penalized for their beliefs. I think they were being penalized for their shit writing. I think like, yeah, there's shit writing, their inability to engage with the substance of the study as evidence. I get so annoyed that they're talking about this as a freedom of speech issue. Like, freedom of speech has nothing to do with this. It's not like she's being locked up for her beliefs or something. She's just not getting points on a written assignment

that she thinks she ought to have gotten because she didn't do the assignment. It's like she's supposed to be learning something from the instructor. The instructor says you did not learn the thing that you needed to learn. You did not demonstrate that you have internalized these skills that we're trying to teach you. You get a failing grade. Whether or not the instructor was wrong,

right and that that's just like how it is. The freedom of speech has nothing to do with this. This is a pedagogical thing. When I was in college, I once got super drunk the day before an assignment and didn't show up and got a zero because I didn't show up. That was freedom of speech, actually. You know, I should, if we were allowed to just say, actually, it's freedom of speech that I should get a 100, even though I didn't show up and do the assignment. I wish I could go back in time and use that dynamic

because boy would I have used the shit out of that. Help, help, I'm being oppressed. More after a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman,

help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter. There's that worst singer in the group? The worst? Yeah. Me.

Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation. The group. The yard birds, right? That's the name. The Harvard yard, but they're open to change. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open.

Since you guys are middle aged. One erection. Listen to you. Humor Me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Humor me. I need some jokes to make me seem funny. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ads supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHeart's twice as large as the next two combined.

So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business. Think IHeart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Call 844-844-I-Hart to get started. That's 844-844-I-Hart. Last night, a blown call changed a game.

This morning, the internet lost its mind. Highlights are trending, opinions are flying, and nobody's telling you exactly what happened. That's where Sports Slice comes in. I'm Timbo. Every episode, we're cutting through the noise. breaking down the plays, the controversies, and the stories behind the headlines. We go straight to the source, the athlete themselves, their locker room stories, their reactions,

the stuff nobody gets to hear. The laughs, the drama, the triumphs, the moments that never make the highlight real. From viral moments to historic games, from buzzer beaters to controversial calls, we break it down, give you context, and ask the questions everybody wants answered. Sports slice brings you closer to the action with stories told by the people who live them. Listen to Sports Slice on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more, follow Timbo Sliced Life 12 in the TikTok podcast network on TikTok. Life throws hurdles big and small.

The question is, how do you conquer them? On Hurtle with Emily Abadi, we sit down with the most inspiring women in sports and wellness, professional athletes, coaches, and Olympic champions to talk about the challenges that shaped them and the mindset that keeps them going. from the WMBA standout Kate Martin and rising hockey star Layla Edwards. If a boy can do it, I don't see why a girl can't. Like, I've never understood that. Like, it didn't make sense in my brain. It's hard to be in spaces that no one looks like you,

but don't ever feel like you don't feel on. Don't let that be the reason you don't do it. An Olympic champs Gabby Thomas and Katie Ladecki. The ability to show a gold medal to someone and have their face light up and smile, that means the world to me. And that's what motivates me to win more gold medals. at our level at this scale, like being able to fail in front of the entire world.

Like, I can do anything. I can do anything. Because resilience isn't just about winning. It's about showing up, even when it's hard. Listen to Hurtle with Emily Abadi on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Presented by Capital One, founding partner of IHeart Women's Sports. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal but encouraged. It's the enhanced games.

call it grotesque, others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast's Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping

the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the I-Hard Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's get right back into it. How many of these conservative figures have spent so long decrying things like DEI, people getting things that they haven't deserved, you know, suck it up, buttercup, work hard, da-da-da-da, nobody cares about your feelings.

But also, this girl deserves an A. Yeah, Cal is all his time, you know, what about her feelings? So Dusty Devers, Oklahoma State Senator, released a statement saying that he believed Bullnicki was given a low grade because the instructor was offended. And again, he said that the issue raises serious First Amendment concerns, saying that it's looking a lot like unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by a state actor. It really isn't. I mean, that's what I'm sorry, dusty devers.

It's really not. But I guess that's my point is that it's totally fine for her to not be happy with the grade that she got. I wouldn't be happy if I don't, nobody likes getting bad grades. But making this an issue where the governor and your state senator are weighing in, I don't think helps anybody. And this is just my opinion based on my own sense of how stuff like this usually goes in media. But I think this whole thing is essentially a false flag. Do you know the phrase rat fucking?

Unfortunately, as an American living in the 21st century, I am intimately familiar with rat fucking. So for folks who don't know, rat fucking is kind of behind the scenes, covert, political sabotage or a political dirty trick. I've described that more or less correctly, right? Yeah, that sounds generally consistent with my understanding of it. You got all these disingenuous actors playing political games, fucking rats behind the scenes. So I think that she wrote this essay on purpose with the intention of contacting Turning Points USA, Fox News, to sort of become the latest right-wing grievance celebrity. Bollnecky's mother, Christy Follecky, is a lawyer who defended a number of January 6th,

rioters and once sued the public school system to force the school to go back to doing in-person schooling during COVID. I am unwilling to believe that that is not part of this. As Parker Malloy of the present age newsletter points out, Bolnackie's mom is retweeting posts that say things like, quote, if you claim to be a transgender, you should be banned from working at any school. Transgenderism is a mental illness. And, quote, individuals who identify as trans should be automatically disqualified from holding any position as teacher or professor. To that last one, the post that was explicitly calling for employment discrimination against all trans people, Christy, Samantha's mom, replied and said, agreed, proud of my daughter.

So as Parker Malloy points out, like, that really is the tell. This is not about this one class or this one paper or even about this one trans instructor, quote, because the family is not arguing that this particular grading decision was wrong. They're in fact celebrating their daughter's role in a broader campaign to make trans people unemployable. The discrimination complaint, the media tour, the outrage, it is all in service of the goal stated very plainly in the posts that Christy Fulnecke is boosting. Trans people should not be allowed to work in education. So I completely agree with Perko Moroy here. It is not really about this one paper because the larger point is about pushing trans people out of education and creating.

a climate of fear where trans folks just feel like, oh, I better just keep my head down because I don't want to be the next, you know, right-wing villain because I did my job at a classroom. Absolutely. They're, they've been doing it for years now, and they've got like a well-oiled machine of targeting individual hapless trans people who happen to get caught up in their crosshairs. As Malloy puts it, this is an industry now. There are jobs, salary, speaker bureaus, and career tracks. the right is always looking for new faces to put on this movement. Young, photogenic people who can be positioned as victims of trans overreach. The detransitioner who regrets her surgery.

The swimmer who tied with a trans woman, the Christian student whose essay got a bad grade. Samantha Fulnecke fits the profile. She's a college student. She's Christian. She wrote about her faith and got a bad grade from a trans instructor. It doesn't matter that the essay was genuinely bad, that two instructors agreed on the assessment, that the feedback was professional and patient,

or that the grading rubric supports the decision. The narrative writes itself, trans professor, fails Christian student for quoting the Bible. What Fulmecki's mother is saying out loud that trans people should not be allowed to teach at all is what this movement actually wants. The individual controversies are just vehicles to get there. Each one is designed to make an example of a trans person

to signal to every other trans person in education or health care or any public-facing role. This could happen to you. Keep your head down. Better yet, leave. And when we look at what's actually, happening with this case, what Parker Malloy describes there is already happening. The investigation has not even concluded as of our recording this, but already the Oklahoma House of Representatives

District 98 has honored Samantha Fulmecki with a citation of recognition. She's also doing a speaking engagement with Turning Points USA and was already on Fox News. So exactly what Parker Malloy describes this becoming an industry that essentially mince, telegenic, young, aggrieved right-wingers, we are already seeing that machinery turn in front of our eyes. Yeah, it's big business. It gets a lot of clicks. It gets a lot of TV views.

I wouldn't even begin to know all the ways that they're making money off of this, but they definitely are. And we can't not mention that all of this is happening in Oklahoma, which has been, I guess, something of a test ground for anti-trans and transphobic policies in education. We've talked about this before, but Chaya Rachech, who runs the Libs of TikTok account,

was given a role in the Oklahoma Department of Education's Library Media Advisory Committee, even though she does not live in Oklahoma, has never lived in Oklahoma, has no connection to the state, has no background or credentials in education. She's actually a realtor. She's just someone who runs social media accounts and hates trans people, and that's enough to be given a position within Oklahoma.

Oklahoma's public education. Yeah, Oklahoma. They've really, if you remember a couple years ago, there were a bunch of right when you were like running for and winning school boards. And I think a lot of that took place in Oklahoma too. So it's not just the university level, but even like K-12 education has really had this very strong influence from these political

Christian types who really much like Samantha's essay value vague moralizing that is in some way possibly connected to the Bible over evidence or facts

like that's it's a whole approach to education that they have really been pushing in that state unfortunately for the children who live there yeah it's not going well because they're consistently ranked pretty low in public education. So I don't think it's necessarily working for the people who are looking to be educated in

the state. No, working great for lives of TikTok. Yeah, really working good for them. And this is also where the governor, Kevin Stitt, has signed a slew of anti-trans bills, things like banning gender affirming care, bills to keep trans kids out of supports, you know, bills barring trans kids from using bathrooms consistent to their gender identity, things like that, right? So I don't think this is a coincidence that it's happening in Oklahoma at all. And so the latest on this case is that the University of Oklahoma Graduate Student Senate

passed a resolution calling on the university to provide more transparency regarding the administrative leave and additional protection for graduate teaching assistants in course investigations. During a meeting, the Graduate Student Senate said, if these accusations were upheld, external employers and academic institutions could reasonably conclude that OU grants grades and degrees without required. students to demonstrate genuine learning through coursework, exams, and honest evaluation. The resolution read, upholding these claims would call into question the value and credibility of an OU degree, suggesting that academic outcomes can be influenced by unfounded accusations

rather than merit. In making this appeal to the university administration, the graduate student Senate stands in solidarity with the graduate student instructor and will continue to advocate for their rights, their safety, and their well-being. The Ways and Means Committee chair Sam Jensen, who authored this bill said that he is aware that this graduate student has received death threats and harassment because of this situation. They say that we are asking the university to condemn that behavior and to step up their protections for the entire university community. The resolution is also calling on the university to disclose the procedures during the investigation and explain in detail why the instructor was placed on leave and to formally apologize for the instructor for the bullying that they received. And that really, I think, is a good point that how quickly, this is somebody who had previously just won an award

for how good of a teacher they were, how easily and how quickly the university just throws them away at the first blush of any kind of grievance that might make them a right-wing villain. And to me, it underscores the importance of things like a graduate student union or a TA union, so that you aren't just abandoned

with no one to advocate for your protections. Yeah, nowhere in the summary of actions by the university doesn't seem like they had the instructors back, right? They just like first thing, put the instructor on leave, let the student know that they won't be penalized, effectively undercutting the grade that the instructor had given the students. And something that was mentioned in that resolution from their student senate, which I think is a really important point, is that there's no emphasis on learning here. Like the whole point of classes in university education is to learn, is for students to learn stuff from their instructors, not to boldly proclaim their religious opinions and get rewarded for it.

I feel like that really gets lost a lot when talking about these kinds of cases. Yes, I read this op ed in the times called how one student's failing grade became a call celebrate on the right that basically lays that out. Here's how they put it. Culture warriors like Bulecki and the Oklahoma conservative politicians supporting her are merely taking advantage of a decades-long trend in higher education. Students think they are customers who deserve to be catered to rather than curious humans who might have something to learn. With the Trump administration going to war with universities and Oklahoma's Freedom Caucus, a group of right-wing state legislators decrying OU's dissent into radical activism and demanding a public apology to Samantha Fulnecki while threatening a funding cut, you can see how hard it is for even the

most stalwart college presidents to stand up for the principles of academic freedom. Inside higher ed does an annual student voice survey that polls thousands of current college students from across the country, and this year's result showed that 65% of college students consider themselves customers of their institution in some capacity, defined in the survey as expecting to have their needs met and be empathized with because they are paying tuition and fees. So that is exactly what you're talking about, right? That this idea that, you know, college is just a customer service experience

where you pay tuition and you get a grade that you want and not a place where there's an expectation that you would do any actual learning and growing. And I think ultimately, like, that is the goal of people like Turning Points USA. They want to break trust in education to make every classroom essentially a battlefield and every teacher, potentially a villain. The real tragedy here is that it does not just hurt faculty, which it absolutely does, you know, especially faculty that doesn't have tenure. If you're an adjunct or a TA, you might have a lot less protections. So it hurts those faculty, but it also hurt students. Like if we stop expecting students to be able to engage with evidence, to build arguments, to revise and challenge their thinking, what exactly is it that they're supposed to be doing in college?

Like, what are they paying tuition for? But I think that is really the point here to devalue education to the point where it is just an exchange of money for grades, not a place where young people are expected to do to any actual learning. Well, Mike, thank you for going through this with me. Maybe I'll see you in the classroom. Yeah, thanks for having me here, Bridget. It was fun to talk about teaching, and I hope that instructor is okay. And I hope Samantha, at some point in the future, looks back on this whole experience with deep shame and regret. Got a story about an interesting thing in tech or just want to say hi?

You can reach us at hello at tangoody.com. You can also find transcripts for today's episode at tangoity.com. There are no girls on the internet was created by me, Bridget Todd. It's a production of IHeart Radio and Unbossed Creative. Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer, Taray Harrison is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Amato is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd.

If you want to help us grow, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. For more podcasts from IHeartRadio, check out the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman

help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and Head, writer Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends

on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Life is full of hurdles. So how do you keep going? On Hurtle with Emily Abadi, we're talking with the most inspiring women in sports and wellness from professional athletes, coaches, and Olympic champions about the challenges

that shape them and the mindset that keeps them moving forward. At our level, at this scale, being able to fail in front of the entire world. Like, I can do anything. I can do anything. Listen to Hurtle with Emily Abadi on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcasts. Presented by Capital One, founding partner of IHart Women's Sports. Last night, a blown call changed a game. This morning, the internet lost its mind. And nobody's telling you exactly what happened. That's where Sports Slice comes in. I'm Timbo, and every episode,

we're cutting through the noise, breaking down the biggest moments in sports and giving you the real story behind the headline. And we're going straight to the source, the athletes themselves, their locker room stories, their reactions in the moment, and the stuff nobody gets to hear. Listen to Sports Slice on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more, follow Timbo Sliced Life 12 in the TikTok podcast network on TikTok. What's up fam? It's Isaiah Thomas. And I'm CJ Toledano. It's our favorite time of the year on our podcast point game, the playoffs. We're digging into the biggest surprises of the season.

And I'm looking back on some of my greatest playoff moments. If we didn't talk ever again, I was crying. You just understood. That's how personal it got. Wow. Then after that game seven, Marquis come in, he's like, you know I love you, dog. You know, it's all love. This was just playoffs.

This was just basketball. So listen to Point Game on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, everyone. I'm Cheryl Strayed, author of Wild and Tiny Beautiful Things. I'm excited to share that I have a new podcast. called Mind Over Mountain. In each episode, I interview athletes, adventurers, and adrenaline seekers to discuss the inner landscapes that informed and inspired their extraordinary feats.

So we, too, can better understand how to face our own seemingly insurmountable challenges. Listen to Mind Over Mountain every Thursday on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.