I've been seeing this story pop up here and there and wanted to see what everybody was so upset about.
Luckily, TurningPointOU posted screenshots. The transcripts are below and I've rehosted the screenshots on Catbox.
What grade would you have given?
The assignment
(screenshot) You must write a 650 words (body of text), double-spaced reaction paper demonstrating that you read the assigned article, and includes a thoughtful reaction to the material presented in the article. Points will be deducted when papers are deficient in any of these areas. I will deduct 10 points if your paper is between 620 and 649 words, and I will not give credit for papers under 620 words. Papers not turned in by the deadline will not receive credit.
Please remember that your reaction paper should not be a summary, but rather a thoughtful discussion of some aspect of the article. Possible approaches to reaction papers include:
- A discussion of why you feel the topic is important and worthy of study (or not)
- An application of the study or results to your own experiences
(screenshot) There are other possibilities as well. The best reaction papers illustrate that students have read the assigned materials and engaged in critical thinking about some aspect of the article.
Formatting requirements: 12-point Times New Roman or Calibri font, one-inch margins on all sides.
GRADING: Reaction papers are graded on a 25-point scale, and are evaluated based on the following:
- Does the paper show a clear tie-in to the assigned article? (10 points)
- Does the paper present a thoughtful reaction or response to the article, rather than a summary? (10 points)
- Is the paper clearly written? (5 points)
Samantha's paper
(screenshot) This article was very thought provoking and caused me to thoroughly evaluate the idea of gender and the role it plays in our society. The article discussed peers using teasing as a way to enforce gender norms. I do not necessarily see this as a problem. God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose. God is very intentional with what He makes, and I believe trying to change that would only do more harm. Gender roles and tendencies should not be considered “stereotypes”. Women naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts. The same goes for men. God created men in the image of His courage and strength, and He created women in the image of His beauty. He intentionally created women differently than men and we should live our lives with that in mind.
(screenshot) It is frustrating to me when I read articles like this and discussion posts from my classmates of so many people trying to conform to the same mundane opinion, so they do not step on people’s toes. I think that is a cowardly and insincere way to live. It is important to use the freedom of speech we have been given in this country, and I personally believe that eliminating gender in our society would be detrimental, as it pulls us farther from God’s original plan for humans. It is perfectly normal for kids to follow gender “stereotypes” because that is how God made us. The reason so many girls want to feel womanly and care for others in a motherly way is not because they feel pressured to fit into social norms. It is because God created and chose them to reflect His beauty and His compassion in that way. In Genesis, God says that it is not good for man to be alone, so He
(screenshot) created a helper for man (which is a woman). Many people assume the word “helper” in this context to be condescending and offensive to women. However, the original word in Hebrew is “ezer kenegdo” and that directly translates to “helper equal to”. Additionally, God describes Himself in the Bible using “ezer kenegdo”, or “helper”, and He describes His Holy Spirit as our Helper as well. This shows the importance God places on the role of the helper (women’s roles). God does not view women as less significant than men. He created us with such intentionally and care and He made women in his image of being a helper, and in the image of His beauty. If leaning into that role means I am “following gender stereotypes” then I am happy to be following a stereotype that aligns with the gifts and abilities God gave me as a woman.
(screenshot) I do not think men and women are pressured to be more masculine or feminine. I strongly disagree with the idea from the article that encouraging acceptance of diverse gender expressions could improve students’ confidence. Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth. I do not want kids to be teased or bullied in school. However, pushing the lie that everyone has their own truth and everyone can do whatever they want and be whoever they want is not biblical whatsoever. The Bible says that our lives are not our own but that our lives and bodies belong to the Lord for His glory. I live my life based on this truth and firmly believe that there would be less gender issues and insecurities in children if they were raised knowing that they do not belong to themselves, but they belong to the Lord.
Trans professor's comments
(screenshot) Mel Curth (She/They)
November 16, 2025 at 2:04 PM
Please note that I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs, but instead I am deducting point for you posting a reaction paper that does not answer the questions for this assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive. While you are entitled to your own personal beliefs, there is an appropriate time or place to implement them in your reflections. I encourage all students to question or challenge the course material with other empirical findings or testable hypotheses, but using your own personal beliefs to argue against the findings of not only this article, but the findings of countless articles across psychology, biology, sociology, etc. is not best practice. You argue that abiding by normative gender roles is beneficial (it is perfectly fine to believe this), but to then say that everyone should act
(screenshot) the same, while also saying that people aren't pressured into gendered expectations is contradictory, especially since your arguments reflect a religious pressure to act in gender-stereotypical ways. You can say that strict gender norms don't create gender stereotypes, but that isn't true by definition of what a stereotype is. Please note that acknowledging gender stereotypes does not immediately denote a negative connotation, a nuance this article discusses. Additionally, to call an entire group of people "demonic" is highly offensive, especially a minoritized population. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but this isn't a vague narrative of "society pushes lies," but instead the result of countless years developing psychological and scientific evidence for these claims and directly interacting with the communities involved. You may personally disagree with this, but that
(screenshot) doesn't change the fact that every major psychological, medical, pediatric, and psychiatric association in the United States acknowledges that, biologically and psychologically, sex and gender is neither binary nor fixed. I implore you apply some more perspective and empathy in your work. If you personally disagree with the findings, then by all means share your criticisms, but make sure to do so in a way that is appropriate and using the methodology of empirical psychology, as aligned with the learning goals in this class. If you have any additional questions or concerns about this or would like some additional educational resources, I would be happy to discuss this further and provide you with them.
Additional professor's comments
(screenshot) Megan Waldron (She/Her/Hers)
November 16, 2025 at 3:09 PM
Samantha, I am the other instructor for this course, and I have also taken the time to read your paper. I concur with Mel on the grade you received. This paper should not be considered as a completion of the assignment. Everyone has different ways in which they see the world, but in an academic course such as this you are being asked to support your ideas with empirical evidence and higher-level reasoning. I find it concerning that you state at the beginning of your paper that you do not think bullying (“teasing”) is a bad thing. In addition, your paper directly and harshly criticizes your peers and their opinions, which are just as valuable as yours. Disagreeing with others is fine, but there is a respectful way to go about it. That goes for discussion posts as well as reaction papers. Please employ more thoughtfulness in your future assignments.
I'm really impressed by the grader's response. They didn't just fail her for not doing the assignment, but broke down why and how her rhetoric is flawed. The fact the school couldn't stand behind this clear and concise feedback just means that Oklahoma doesn't really care about the quality of the work done at their school.
We've been turning public schools into diploma mills for a while now. This is just another step towards the Liberty University-ification of the national academic system.
I mean it is Oklahoma, we couldn't possibly expect more of them... :/
I wish their accreditation could be revoked for this.
should
would
Oklahoma, the state Missouri thanks god for.
Their written response is great but I would've flagged this with my boss.
That's definitely fair criticism, but its sad that bringing in their boss should be necessary in a situation like this.
🌎👨🚀🔫👨🚀
Are you impressed they mentioned a number of reasons not in the assignment criteria or that the assignment is a called a reaction paper? I was skeptical about the student's grievance until the assignment statement caught my attention.
The criteria for a reaction could have mentioned scientifically rigorous reasoning drawn on empirical research as the professor stated in their response. Instead, they were astonishingly lax: a clear reaction of some required length demonstrating they had read & thought about the article. Was the professor's expectation stated elsewhere, perhaps in the syllabus?
I don't want to agree with MAGA student, but then I see this joke of assignment specification & have to wonder.
They called out multiple reasons why their response didn't rise to the standards of an empirical analysis. Making up your own philosophical reasoning (that isn't even consistent within the paper submitted) for a sociological analysis means that the paper contributed nothing to the topic at hand.
For a college level course, you shouldn't need to explicitly state that a mythos can't be used as empirical evidence.
Dogmatic, ideological junk isn't philosophical. It is opinion & reaction.
Again, where does the assignment say to do that?
As written, it merely demands a clear "reaction" showing they read the linked article & thought about it. Where's the scientific rigor in that?
If the professor had wanted scientific rigor, then it wouldn't have been hard to plainly write that like a grownass professional would be expected to do. It seems you're faulting students for following soft instructions exactly as written.
The student's essay does neither of these things. The essay shows the student read the title of the article, not the article itself. I realize those as are the type of reactions we're used to seeing on Lemmy, but a reaction showing they read the article would mention points directly from the article instead of just the general theme of "Trans people existing".
Regurgitating dogmatic talking points does not demonstrate that the student "thought about it". It reads like the student read the title, maybe the first couple of lines, then shut off their brain and said "trans bad because others tell me trans bad".
Again, I realize it's very common to see replies from people that did not read or think about an article so this seems normal, but a collage level course is going to have higher standards than social media.
It's a psychology class. This doesn't need to be stated.
Asking (in unusual, soft language) for a thoughtful "reaction" isn't unexpected for a science class?
Why shouldn't an assignment that already departs from common expectations for a science class need it stated which expectations still apply?
So the science class needs science stuff. Glad I could clear this up.
In what sense did she not do the assignment? Which aspects of the grading rubric do you think she failed at? Her rhetoric may be flawed, but that wasn't part of the assignment. You could argue that flawed rhetoric is bad writing, but that's only 5 points of the assignment out of a total of 25.
Well, the TA does a pretty good job explaning where it is lacking.
I don't think this would be acceptable in a theological course because it is hot garbage, let alone a sociology(?) course.
Again though: Which aspects of the grading rubric do you think she failed at? The TA talks about things that aren't on the grading rubric, or if they are they fall under "bad writing" which is only worth 5 points.
The rubric gives only a small amount of context. Do you think it should explicitly say "contains college-quality writing?"
I usually put that crap in the syllabus.
you are confusing the assignment and the grading.
they are two separate things.
the assignment was:
the submission failed on both these points, and thus it is automatically disqualified, no grading is even applied.
there was no discussion in the submission.
"discussion" in an academic context is a technical term that means "examining a topic based on evidence from some point of view". you may have encountered something similar in school as a pro/contra essay. in academia this gets expanded on by requiring evidence in the form of citations in order to support one's positions and conclusions (or lack thereof).
since the student did not provide sources, this point of the assignment is not fulfilled.
the same goes for the second point, for the same reasons: insufficient evidence was provided.
the teachers explain this in their response.
since neither part of the assignment is fulfilled no grading is applied: it's an automatic failure.
this is also explained in the response.
you may want to carefully read the responses again, and keep in mind that all of this is happening in an academic context. providing evidence is expected by default.
"i believe", "i feel", 'the bible says", etc., are NOT evidence in a scientific context....
I think defining discussion here is the critical point. If someone take the assignment literally, they don't need to provide arguments to describe how they feel about the topic in the article.
Since this part can be interpreted differently, the students should get some points. Or ask the resubmit their papers with "scientifically supported evidence"
the problem here is that this is in a university setting.
the student has almost certainly been made aware of what "discussion" means.
i explained in a different comment (check my profile if the link doesn't work, not sure how to properly link comments...) why this is not a sufficient excuse.
because the previous comment seemed well received, I'll try to give another example of how this sort of course might generally play out:
at a typical university you'll get some general orientation at the beginning of the first semester. this will include things like the rules for exams, the rules for the campus, the rules for the dorms (if there are any), the rules for general conduct and behavior on-campus, and a ton of other shit like safety drills in case of a fire or other catastrophe, laboratory training (if relevant), and on and on. there's a LOT to cover in the first few weeks. you'll probably sign a bunch of forms that say "i have read the rules" in legalese, so that there is proof that you have been made aware of the rules.
this orientation will include, or be closely followed by, a class on scientific work.
this course will cover the scientific method, scientific literature, scientific citations (in the specific style of your field and university), the formatting of all your submissions (there's usually a template you are supposed to use, though this is somewhat dependant on the teacher of any given class.)
there will also be sections on scientific language: the difference between a scientific theory and a "theory" in casual language, what a scientific paper really is and how to tell the difference between a high quality and a low quality paper (or if the paper is just complete nonsense.), and so forth.
this is were the student in the OP almost certainly learned how the assignment given was supposed to be written.
there's literally entire classes for this specific thing.
and yeah, that's because it's actually difficult to do properly!
there's nothing "unfair", or "unexpected", or "insufficiently clear" about this work assignment.
it can seem that way to someone who hasn't been to university, but to everyone who has, it's clear as day.
there is never a need to point out things like "you need to use proper citations in your work", or "you need to follow the scientific method", because this has already been covered and is then expected in damn near every assignment afterwards.
it's the expected standard.
so there are two possibilities here:
either the student hasn't absorbed the material of the previously mentioned class, and just kinda winged it, hoping for the best, and is thus simply an exceedingly bad scientist, which means the failure was entirely deserved.
...or they did it on purpose, and the failure was entirely deserved.
my money is definitely on the latter.
TL;DR:
she damn well knew this submission would be disqualified.
because all students know this.
it's literally the scientific method, and thus one of the very first things they teach you at university.
hope this clears up why none of this is explicitly mentioned in the assignment, but feel free to ask more questions!
Nice breakdown, I've seen a couple people commenting that are missing the fact that quoting a personal religious belief isn't the same as empirical evidence to back up an arguement.
Not to mention it feels more like the student was just trying to personally attack the TA.
yes, exactly!
what i think is rather important to point out:
even in theology this shit wouldn't fly!
that's how absurd this "controversy" is.
because even in theology you need to provide sound argumentation and sources. even there you need more evidence than this "student" submitted.
it's just...so, so absurd.
You can claim that there are requirements that are not mentioned anywhere in any of the instructions given to the students, but there's no evidence for that in what they were actually given.
There is no requirement listed that the assignment be written in English, or submitted on paper. An assignment written in Latin on the side of a cow (with a 1 inch margin) is not explicitly forbidden.
the evidence is: this is a university course.
this is normal for every university in the world. everyone that's ever taken a university course knows this.
it's quite literally the scientific method.
it's almost never spelled out anywhere, because students generally have dedicated courses that teach this method and related things like researching, proper citations, writing structures and styles, etc.
usually called something like "scientific working" or something (don't know what it's called in english, german is usually something like "wissenschaftliches arbeiten").
this isn't kindergarten; there are prerequisites and they are expected by default.
these aren't children, they're adults.
and everyone involved knew this in advance.
this is not "hidden" or "secret".
it's a standard.