Universities are not kind to Christians. Decades of ideological conditioning, Marxist infiltration, and moral degradation paved the way for Christianity to become a taboo belief that some believers are careful about speaking aloud.
Of course, not everyone is so shy. Some are ready and willing to lay down the truth, no matter how harsh it comes off, or how negatively faculty and staff might react. That's exactly what Oklahoma University pre-med student Samantha Fulnecky did when she was asked to read an article about gender binary, gender stereotypes, and mental health in children.
Fulnecky didn't mince words in her response to the assignment and felt no reason to, as the grade revolved around three criteria according to Fox News:
"Does the paper show a clear tie-in to the assigned article?" is the first, worth up to 10 out of the assignment's 25 total points.
"Does the paper present a thoughtful reaction or response to the article, rather than a summary?" is the second, also worth up to 10 points.
"Is the paper clearly written?" is the last criterion, worth up to five points.
Fulnecky gave a very Christian response. God made them man and woman, each sex has a purpose, gender roles shouldn't be considered "stereotypes," she wrote, even going so far as to denounce those who don't express these truths for fear of offending people, calling them "cowardly and incensere." To be sure, the essay also met all three criteria.
Yet, she was given a 0 out of 25 points. Why?
Because a teacher's assistant, Mel Curth, who uses "she/they" pronouns, didn't like it on a personal level, and was unable to keep her own personal thoughts out of the reasoning for the grade:
Curth's response insisted that the grade had nothing to do with Fulnecky's beliefs, but criticized the essay for lacking empirical evidence, which was not mentioned as a requirement in the grading rubric. Curth also described the paper as "offensive."
"Please note that I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs, but instead I am deducting point [sic] 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," Curth's response said.
Curth said that the concept of only two sexes is not backed by science.
"You may personally disagree with this, but that 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," Curth said.
Fulnecky made the case that the task was to provide a subjective opinion, not an expression of what Cruth considered to be facts. Regardless, Cruth doubled down, causing Fulnecky to take the issue higher to the school's administration, where the issue then became viral, and OU responded soon after the story spread like wildfire on social media. Cruth was placed on administrative leave, and the matter is being investigated, but Fulnecky isn't sure anything would've happened had the story not gone viral. In fact, she says that the university's claim that it's been in contact with her was a complete lie.
No one is surprised this is happening, but I want to make a very clear point here, not about Christianity's persecution at the hands of leftists in positions of authority at universities, but about free speech.
If it's Christians today, it could very well be something else tomorrow. All that's necessary is for something people consider good and truthful to fall out of favor thanks to modern pop-ideology.
And I'll give you a great example.
No one in their right mind would've dared question the intrusion of women's spaces by men a couple of decades ago. Women's sports were women's sports, women's restrooms were for women, and women's groups and clubs were exclusively for the female sex. This was largely agreed upon by everyone in society and was a no-brainer of a norm. Radical feminists and conservatives alike were on the same page.
Then the transgender movement happened, and suddenly the definition of "woman" became nebulous. It became far more important for men who claim to be women to be considered women and given all the accompanying spaces and benefits than for women themselves to be protected. J.K. Rowling, your standard old school feminist, went from being a hero to public enemy number one in radical feminist circles upon her unwillingness to say men are women.
If someone like Rowling can suddenly find herself going from being celebrated to reviled by the left in the space of a day, then people should ask the question of how long it will be before their own ideological positions go from normal to taboo and punishable for expressing? How long before your free speech is stomped on because it's trendy to do so?
This isn't something anyone should be taking lightly. An attack on a Christian for merely expressing themselves is an attack, not on Christianity, but an attack on free speech, and that's ultimately an attack on you. You're just not feeling the effects of it... yet.
If Christians aren't free to speak their minds, then ultimately no one is. Your ability to practice free speech isn't safe. It's on a countdown timer.
