OU student unjustly receives zero on assignment for “offensive” paper
By Easton Martin | December 2, 2025
A University of Oklahoma student recently received a zero on a reaction paper after citing the Bible in response to a study on gender roles. The case has drawn attention nationwide because it raises questions about academic fairness, freedom of expression, and the role of personal worldview in classroom assignments. While some have criticized the essay for lacking empirical evidence or using language deemed offensive, a careful look at the assignment and grading criteria shows that the zero was not justified.
The student, a junior in psychology, submitted a 650-word essay responding to a study on gender typicality, peer relations, and adolescent mental health. She offered her personal viewpoint grounded in her Christian faith, arguing that distinctions between male and female are purposeful and that societal promotion of multiple gender identities contradicts that design. The assignment’s grading rubric required students to demonstrate that they read the article, provide a thoughtful reaction, and organize their ideas clearly.
By these standards, the student met the essential requirements. She directly engaged with the assigned article and offered a coherent reaction informed by her worldview. The rubric did not require reliance on peer-reviewed sources, nor did it prohibit the use of personal beliefs as part of the response. Reaction papers are designed to allow students to express their own perspectives. Penalizing the student for drawing on her faith effectively turned a difference in worldview into a failing grade, which contradicts the stated purpose of the assignment.
A zero implies that a student did not attempt the assignment or submitted work entirely irrelevant to the prompt. In this case, the student submitted a complete essay addressing the topic. Concerns over the argument’s persuasiveness or language style could have been addressed through partial point deductions for clarity or organization. Nullifying the entire grade was disproportionate and inconsistent with the rubric.
Public universities have a responsibility to protect the expression of diverse viewpoints. Students should be able to express religious or philosophical beliefs when completing assignments that invite personal reflection. Penalizing a student solely for her worldview discourages free thought and signals that certain perspectives are unwelcome in academic discourse.
The student followed the assignment’s instructions. She read the article, offered a thoughtful reaction, and presented her ideas in a clear essay. The zero she received was excessive, unjustified, and undermines both academic fairness and intellectual diversity. Grading must reflect the work submitted, not the beliefs of the student. Universities must ensure that students are evaluated according to stated criteria and not punished for expressing a viewpoint that differs from that of their instructor.
