Oklahoma U student files discrimination report after flunking gender essay for psych class with trans instructor – New York Post

Report on Academic Dispute at the University of Oklahoma and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

An academic incident at the University of Oklahoma involving a student’s essay, a graduate instructor’s grading, and a subsequent discrimination complaint highlights critical tensions related to several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A graduate assistant was removed from their position pending an investigation after a student alleged religious discrimination. The dispute centers on an essay for a psychology course that used religious ideology to argue against the existence of multiple genders, which the instructor, who is transgender, deemed academically insufficient and offensive. This report analyzes the event through the framework of SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

Incident Details

1. A student, Samantha Fulnecky, submitted an essay for a psychology course on gender stereotypes. The essay relied on Biblical interpretations to assert that there are only two genders, labeling the concept of multiple genders as “demonic.”
2. The graduate instructor, Mel Curth, who uses she/they pronouns, assigned a failing grade. The rationale provided was the essay’s failure to address the prompt, its reliance on “personal ideology” over “empirical evidence,” and the use of offensive language toward a minoritized population.
3. A second graduate instructor, Megan Waldron, supported the grade, noting the essay’s disrespectful tone towards peers and a lack of concern for bullying and teasing as a negative social enforcer.
4. The student filed a discrimination report based on religious beliefs.
5. The University of Oklahoma placed a graduate student instructor on administrative leave while it investigates the allegations.

Analysis in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 4: Quality Education

The incident directly concerns the principles of providing inclusive and equitable quality education (Target 4.7), which aims to ensure learners acquire knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, human rights, gender equality, and a culture of peace and non-violence.

• Academic Standards vs. Personal Ideology: The instructor’s feedback emphasized the need for “empirical psychology” and evidence-based arguments over personal beliefs, a cornerstone of quality higher education.
• Fostering Inclusive Learning Environments: The instructor encouraged the student to apply “perspective and empathy” and engage in criticism “in a way that is appropriate,” aligning with the goal of creating educational spaces that respect diversity and promote constructive dialogue.

SDG 5: Gender Equality & SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The core subject of the dispute relates to achieving gender equality and reducing inequalities based on gender identity and other statuses (Target 5.1, Target 10.2, Target 10.3).

• Discrimination and Marginalization: The student’s essay content, particularly the use of the term “demonic” to describe gender diversity, directly conflicts with the goal of ending all forms of discrimination and promoting the social inclusion of all people.
• Protection of Minoritized Groups: The instructor’s feedback specifically noted that the student’s language was “highly offensive, especially [to] a minoritized population,” highlighting the responsibility of educational systems to protect vulnerable groups and challenge discriminatory rhetoric.
• Institutional Policies: The university’s response to the discrimination claim reflects an engagement with policies designed to ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities, a key component of SDG 10.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

This event serves as a case study for the challenge of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions (Target 16.7) and promoting non-discriminatory laws and policies (Target 16.B).

• Institutional Response: The university’s decision to launch an investigation and place an instructor on leave demonstrates an institutional mechanism for addressing grievances and conflicts involving allegations of discrimination.
• Balancing Rights and Policies: The situation underscores the complex role of institutions in navigating tensions between freedom of religious expression and the enforcement of non-discriminatory policies that protect individuals based on gender identity. The outcome of the investigation will be indicative of the university’s approach to creating a just and inclusive community.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The entire conflict takes place within an educational setting, the University of Oklahoma. The article discusses the content of a psychology course, the criteria for grading an essay (“neglected to address the prompt and relied more on ‘personal ideology’ than ‘empirical evidence’”), and the academic standards expected of students. This directly relates to the quality and nature of education provided.

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  The core of the dispute is centered on gender. The essay topic was “how people are perceived based on societal expectations of gender,” the instructor is transgender, and the student’s essay argues against the existence of multiple genders, calling the idea “demonic.” The instructor’s feedback explicitly mentions the offensive nature of the comments towards a “minoritized population,” highlighting issues of discrimination and equality related to gender identity.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  This goal is addressed through the lens of discrimination and social inclusion. The conflict involves a member of a “minoritized population” (the transgender instructor) and a student’s claim of being discriminated against “based on religious beliefs.” The article highlights the tension between different social groups and the challenge of ensuring equal opportunity and respect for all within an institution.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The university’s response to the conflict demonstrates the role of institutions in managing disputes and upholding justice. The university launched an investigation and placed an instructor on administrative leave in response to a student’s allegation of illegal discrimination. This action pertains to the goal of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions that can process grievances and enforce policies.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 4.7 (under SDG 4)

   This target aims to ensure learners acquire knowledge and skills for promoting human rights and gender equality. The psychology course, by requiring an essay on “how people are perceived based on societal expectations of gender,” is directly attempting to educate students on this topic. The instructor’s feedback encouraging the student to “apply some more perspective and empathy” aligns with the goal of fostering a culture of peace and understanding.

2. Target 5.1 (under SDG 5)

   This target calls for an end to all forms of discrimination against all women and girls. While the article’s context is broader, involving a transgender instructor, the principle of ending gender-based discrimination is central. The student’s essay, which calls the belief in multiple genders “demonic,” and the instructor’s response about the offensiveness of such statements, directly relate to the challenge of eliminating discrimination against gender minorities.

3. Target 10.3 (under SDG 10)

   This target focuses on ensuring equal opportunity and eliminating discriminatory practices. The student’s formal complaint alleging she was “illegally discriminated against based on religious beliefs” and the university’s subsequent investigation are direct actions related to this target. It highlights the institutional process for addressing claims of unequal treatment and discrimination.

4. Target 16.b (under SDG 16)

   This target is about promoting and enforcing non-discriminatory laws and policies. The university’s investigation into the student’s allegations is an example of an institution enforcing its non-discriminatory policies. The entire situation revolves around a claim that a policy was violated, prompting an official institutional response.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Curriculum content on gender equality (Implied for Target 4.7)

  The existence of a course assignment focused on “how people are perceived based on societal expectations of gender” serves as an indicator that the educational curriculum includes topics related to gender equality and human rights.

• Number of discrimination complaints filed (Implied for Targets 5.1 and 10.3)

  The article is based on a “contested discrimination report filed by a disgruntled student.” The filing of such a report is a measurable event. Tracking the number and nature of discrimination complaints (based on religion, gender identity, etc.) within an institution is a key indicator of existing tensions and the use of grievance mechanisms.

• Existence of institutional mechanisms to address discrimination (Mentioned for Target 16.b)

  The university’s action to place an instructor “on administrative leave while it probed a student’s allegations” indicates the existence and activation of a formal process for handling discrimination claims. This institutional capacity is a direct indicator of progress towards enforcing non-discriminatory policies.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: nypost.com