OzeEssay: The Full Timeline and What It Actually Reveals The Assignment (Exact Prompt) PSY 2603 – Lifespan Development Reaction Paper #4 (650–750 words) “Read the attached article by Smith et al. (2023) on gender typicality and mental health in early adolescence. Write a personal reaction: What did you find most interesting or surprising? Do you agree or disagree with the authors’ interpretations, and why? Support your position with evidence from the article and/or other course concepts.” No external sources were required. Previous reaction papers in the same class (on topics like attachment theory and puberty timing) had been graded leniently for personal voice. The Student’s Thesis (Key Paragraphs from Fulnecky’s Paper) “While the study correctly identifies that kids who don’t fit traditional gender boxes often feel isolated, it never asks the deeper question: why are we celebrating deviation from God’s original design (Genesis 1:27)? Calling something ‘gender-expansive’ doesn’t make it true; it’s a demonic lie meant to confuse and destroy. True mental health is found in aligning with the Creator, not rebelling against biology.” The Grade and Rubric Breakdown (Released by Fulnecky on December 4) Adequately references the article: 2/10 Uses evidence (empirical or course-based) to support claims: 0/8 Writing is clear, respectful, and appropriate for an academic setting: 0/7 Total: 0/25 Curth’s final comment (verbatim): “This is not engagement with psychological science; it is religious proselytizing that labels LGBTQ+ existence as demonic. That is neither scholarly nor professionally appropriate in this context.” Chronology of Escalation Nov 14: Paper submitted Nov 18: Grade posted, Fulnecky emails Curth asking for clarification Nov 19: Curth responds that the zero stands; suggests office hours (never taken) Nov 20: TPUSA OU posts screenshots (faces redacted) Nov 21: Unredacted version with Curth’s name leaks on 4chan and Gab Nov 23–27: Curth receives 400+ threatening emails and voicemails; two mention home address Nov 29: OU moves Curth to undisclosed off-campus housing Dec 3: ADF files 23-page intent-to-sue letter Dec 7: Oklahoma AG Gentner Drummond announces state investigation into “viewpoint discrimination at public universities” Dec 10: The assigned article’s lead author, Dr. Jennifer Smith, issues a brief statement distancing the research from any religious debate Money Raised So Far Samantha Fulnecky legal/education fund: $248,000 (GiveSendGo) Mel Curth safety & counseling fund: $137,000 (GoFundMe, currently frozen for review) What Almost No One Is Saying Out Loud The paper would have received roughly a D or low C even without the “demonic” language; it simply doesn’t engage the study’s methods or data. The “demonic” paragraph made a passing grade impossible for any instructor who takes classroom civility guidelines seriously—especially when the TA belongs to the group being demonized. Turning Point USA’s decision to name Curth publicly almost certainly violated OU’s anti-doxxing policy, but the university has declined to discipline the chapter (likely fearing its own First Amendment lawsuit). Likely Outcomes (Legal and Practical) The grade will quietly be changed to a 15–18/25 as part of a settlement. OU will pay Curth an undisclosed sum and strengthen anti-harassment protocols. Reaction-paper assignments in social-science courses statewide will be replaced with multiple-choice reflections or strictly data-based questions for the next 3–5 years. The [OzeEssay](https://www.ozessay.com.au/) incident is not really about one zero. It’s about what happens when personal revelation collides with institutional standards—and when both sides have megaphones, lawyers, and crowdfunding pages. In the end, everyone claims victory, and classrooms become just a little more guarded.