University of Oklahoma Paper Controversy

[knaves]

I assume most people have heard about this controversy (and it was referenced in a recent discussion on here) so I think its worth having a discussion about this.  If you haven't seen it yet, here is a link to an AP article about it.

When I first heard about this controversy, I rolled my eyes. It sounded like someone wanted a free pass for turning in a sloppy paper and then hiding behind religion when they got called on it. In most college classes, “the Bible says so” is not an argument. It is a belief statement. If you do not connect it to the material and explain your reasoning, you should expect to lose points.

Then I read the actual instructions and rubric, and my view changed. The prompt calls it a reaction paper and it warns students not to write a summary. It asks for a thoughtful discussion of some aspect of the article. The rubric is simple. It gives 10 points for a clear tie-in to the assigned article. It gives 10 points for a thoughtful reaction rather than a recap. It gives 5 points for clear writing. The only hard requirements it lists are word count and basic formatting like font and margins. It does not require citations, outside sources, or a specific style like APA. If that is the grading standard, the right move is to deduct points for clarity and quality. It is not to fail the student because the grader found the opinion offensive.

To me, this clearly looks like a case where a low-stakes assignment (3% of the final grade) asked for a personal reaction to confirm the student had actually read the material and then punished the student for having a reaction that the grader found offensive. There’s a real difference between deducting points for weak writing, overgeneralizations, or shallow engagement and issuing a zero in a way that reads less like “you didn’t follow the rubric” and more like “your viewpoint is unacceptable and I'm going to use my power to force you to say what I want to hear.” That’s the core problem here: if we say “give your opinion,” we can’t turn around and fail students because their opinion is offensive.

To me this is a case where actually reading the material changed my opinion on the topic. All of have biases, and I'm sure that colors my perspective here. If you disagree with my take, I’d like to hear why, especially if you think the rubric supports the zero score.

---

The only link I have found to both the completed assignment and the rubric is here, uploaded by one of the Oklahoma News pages.  Assuming this is complete, here is what the rubric actually says:


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. | will deduct 10 points if your paper is between 620 and 649 words, and | 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: 
1. A discussion of why you feel the topic is important and worthy of study (or not) 
2. An application of the study or results to your own experiences

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: 
1. Does the paper show a clear tie-in to the assigned article? (10 points) 
2. Does the paper present a thoughtful reaction or response to the article, rather than a summary? (10 points) 
3. Is the paper clearly written? (5 points)

I am curious if this is a complete account or if there are other requirements elsewhere, but I haven't been able to find any claims that any other instructions were given to students.

[NotJoeBiden]

I don’t think calling trans people demonic and citing the bible as evidence is a thoughtful reflection of a paper on adolescent gender development.

[knaves]

I don’t think calling trans people demonic and citing the bible as evidence is a thoughtful reflection of a paper on adolescent gender development.

I don't think anyone is arguing that this paper is anything to be proud of.  It was clearly thrown together at the last minute.  I think the question here is whether or not the TA actually engaged in what they were removed for: arbitrary and inconsistent grading.  Many (if not most) of the posters here have taught at the collegiate level and are familiar with this type of low quality paper being submitted at the last minute. 

I think the real question is whether similar slapdash work was also given a zero if it endorsed an more liberal viewpoint that also didn't appear to read the paper very closely.  In order words, if the "personal reaction" cited a different belief-based system other than the Christian bible, would it also have received a zero based on this rubric? 

(From reading the paper I think she used demonic to refer to an idea/ideology rather than individuals)

[Hotdogman1]

What's the point in just posting part of the rubric?

Link to full essay and rubric: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ou-s...23615.html

[knaves]

What's the point in just posting part of the rubric?

Link to full essay and rubric: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ou-s...23615.html

Thanks for posting this! I mentioned above I couldn't find the actual post other than that one upload, so its good to see the actual item.

[wow]

You haven't included the link or the terribly written essay (C.S. Lewis, GK Chesterton, or even Karen Kingsbury this student is not), but having read about this, the graders were very clear that the grade was *not* based on the person's religious beliefs or the offensiveness of their statements, but rather for an infantile (unclear) writing style, poor argumentation (not thoughtful), and failure to engage with the article (unclear tie-in). One grader expressed disagreement with what the student said and stated they found it offensive, but clearly stated the grade was *not* based on either of those things, and also clearly stated what the grade *was* based on. Other graders checked the grade and agreed with it.

In summary (my comments in bold):

GRADING: Reaction papers are graded on a 25-point scale, and are evaluated based on the following:
1. Does the paper show a clear tie-in to the assigned article? (10 points) No.
2. Does the paper present a thoughtful reaction or response to the article, rather than a summary? (10 points) No. 
3. Is the paper clearly written? (5 points) No.

How your can look at the assignment instructions and the essay and conclude that the essay met the assignment requirements is beyond me. Your explanation of your judgment is not based in the particulars and therefore feels like an argument to support a predetermined conclusion, whether that's the case or not.

As an aside, it's evident from the student's subsequent behavior that she was looking for a way to get her trans TA in trouble and/or fired while also getting to play the victim and become an ideological grifter like so many who have gone before her. There are plenty of clear cases of religious discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

As another aside: Mods, does this post belong in Off-Topic? I know that other threads that are related to education, but not to educational pursuits or to schools with their own subforums, have gone there (e.g. the recent discussion about teacher qualifications in the U.S., etc.)

[Hotdogman1]

Link to the article for the assignment: https://kfor.com/wp-content/uploads/site...n-2014.pdf

It's kind of obvious that the student just read the first paragraph of the introduction and just went ham.

Even if you go on a religious viewpoint, you don't just say God intended to do this and that without actually quoting the bible verses. I can't go to a math course and say 5+2= 5000 full men and get pissed if I get a 0. Remember, the essay was for a Lifespan Development course, which is a psychology course. It would be comparable to attending a biology course and rather than answering how humans evolved, you write an essay about how "God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose" then sue the university for violating your first amendment rights.

[knaves]

My understanding is that further evaluation involving the standard grade appeal process ruled that the grading was arbitrary and inconsistent.  Now, to what extent that decision is based on political pressure is unknown (especially given the more conservative environment in Oklahoma) but at least some evaluators did not agree with the grading. I believe the failure for lack of empirical referencing would have been much stronger if there was a requirement in the rubric, but the rubric clearly stressed personal reactions rather than data analysis. 

I think my main concern here is that the response appears to basically be driven by disagreement and personal offense.  I think every professor on here has received numerous essays that were clearly thrown together at the last minute and barely (if at all) engage with the actual research.  I do think a large part of this depends on how other papers were graded which is probably unknowable because of FERPA.  If other low quality work was given a zero then I have much less of a concern there.  If however this paper was the only one that received a zero (with other similarly poorly prepared items being submitted) then I think the evidence for bias is much stronger. 

If I had graded this, here is what my grading would have been (though I would have written a different rubric). 

1) Clear tie-in to the assigned article (2/10)
While your paper briefly references something mentioned in the article (peer teasing in response to gender norms), it does not engage with the article’s specific content in a sustained way. It does not accurately discuss the study’s key concepts, evidence, or conclusions. Most of your paper is broad theological claims that aren’t connected back to the research featured.

2) Thoughtful reaction/response rather than summary (3/10)
This is clearly a reaction rather than a recap, but the reaction is mostly directed at a general social debate rather than the material presented in the article. Your paper offers strong assertions but does not critically evaluate the study’s claims, respond to specific findings, or explain why the article’s reasoning or evidence is unconvincing. A “thoughtful reaction” here would mean responding to particular points in the article and explaining your reasoning in relation to them.

3) Clear writing (2/5)
The writing is generally understandable and organized, but there is repetition and the argument relies heavily on generalized statements rather than clear, article-linked reasoning.

Total: 7/25

Graders note: Frankly this paper feels much more like an attempt to make a political statement about your beliefs on trends in gender expression based upon your own religious beliefs than it does an examination of the trends in adolescent  psychological development. At this academic level we expect more from you. Do better next time

[freeloader]

I think the real question is whether similar slapdash work was also given a zero if it endorsed an more liberal viewpoint that also didn't appear to read the paper very closely.  In order words, if the "personal reaction" cited a different belief-based system other than the Christian bible, would it also have received a zero based on this rubric? 

I can only relate my experience from serving as a TA in history courses at a top-50 national university (public) and a top-25 national university (private), the conversations that I had with fellow TAs and junior instructors, along with my experience teaching at a couple of community colleges.  Religion, particularly Christianity, was sort of a 3rd rail when it was mentioned in a student's paper.  Pretty much everyone I knew (and actually, this included many long tenured faculty) bent over backwards NOT to criticize students on their argumentation or content when they roped in religion, especially Christianity.  There were similar "considerations" about some other minority groups, including LGBTQ, but that wasn't third rail.  I GUARANTEE that at the schools where I did my graduate studies in history, lower quality papers that invoked Christianity received higher marks than comparable papers that did not mention Christianity.

Papers like this get 0's every day from college instructors.  I genuinely think it really is only the right-wing, anti-academy press that makes situations like this a big deal when Christians are "targeted."  The author clearly deserved a zero.  They did absolutely nothing to critically engage with the essay.  There was zero evidence that the author of the paper had read the paper or even dumped it into an AI program to get a summary of it.  Paper deserves a zero, whether their criticism is grounded in Christianity, Buddhism, Marxism, breatharian, flat earther, Cherokee, trans, Irish, or bicycle rider.

I will acknowledge that I never gave a student a zero when they turned in an assignment, particularly if they did so timely.  Giving a zero achieves very little pedagogically.  If I give most students a 50, it makes the point as much as a zero, maybe even more so because they are more likely to bring it to me in office hours or take it to the writing center.  Hopefully they learn from their mistake.  That is (or at least should be) the goal of higher education, right?

[bluebooger]

I don’t think calling trans people demonic and citing the bible as evidence is a thoughtful reflection of a paper on adolescent gender development.

you are wrong

a reaction by definition is based on personal feelings -- those feelings could come from the bible, the Quran, the teachings of the buddha, from the philosophy of the old Kung Fu tv series, from teachings of atheist parents, from Mr Rogers, from Homey D. Clown, from an influential 4th grade teacher, from your experience in the military ... or from anywhere else 

just because you put no credence in the bible doesn't mean other people don't 

perhaps she has read the bible from cover to cover                    
perhaps she had read a few bible commentaries                 
perhaps she has put a lot of thought into the bible's teachings over the years                 

one thing is for sure, the professor wouldn't have failed a conservative muslim student who wrote the same paper and cited the Quran as evidence 

no way the school would want to be accused of being anti-muslim

---

You haven't included the link or the terribly written essay (C.S. Lewis, GK Chesterton, or even Karen Kingsbury this student is not), but having read about this, the graders were very clear that the grade was *not* based on the person's religious beliefs or the offensiveness of their statements, but rather for an infantile (unclear) writing style, poor argumentation (not thoughtful), and failure to engage with the article (unclear tie-in). One grader expressed disagreement with what the student said and stated they found it offensive, but clearly stated the grade was *not* based on either of those things, and also clearly stated what the grade *was* based on. Other graders checked the grade and agreed with it.

In summary (my comments in bold):

GRADING: Reaction papers are graded on a 25-point scale, and are evaluated based on the following:
1. Does the paper show a clear tie-in to the assigned article? (10 points) No.
2. Does the paper present a thoughtful reaction or response to the article, rather than a summary? (10 points) No. 
3. Is the paper clearly written? (5 points) No.

How your can look at the assignment instructions and the essay and conclude that the essay met the assignment requirements is beyond me. Your explanation of your judgment is not based in the particulars and therefore feels like an argument to support a predetermined conclusion, whether that's the case or not.

As an aside, it's evident from the student's subsequent behavior that she was looking for a way to get her trans TA in trouble and/or fired while also getting to play the victim and become an ideological grifter like so many who have gone before her. There are plenty of clear cases of religious discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

As another aside: Mods, does this post belong in Off-Topic? I know that other threads that are related to education, but not to educational pursuits or to schools with their own subforums, have gone there (e.g. the recent discussion about teacher qualifications in the U.S., etc.)

did you even read the assignment ?

Possible approaches to reaction papers include: 
1. A discussion of why you feel the topic is important and worthy of study (or not)

that is EXACTLY what her paper was 

>  but rather for an infantile (unclear) writing style, poor argumentation (not thoughtful), and failure to engage with the article (unclear tie-in).

everything you said here is incorrect                 
her writing was very clear, her arguements were fine and thoughtful (based on her religious beliefs), she enganed with the article completely and said it is WRONG and gave her reasons                  
you can disagree with those reasons, but she was thoughtful and gave reasons from the bible                
you may not think the bible is a credible source -- who cares ?                  
no source or citations were required 

> it's evident from the student's subsequent behavior that she was looking for a way to get her trans TA in trouble and/or fired while also getting to play the victim and become an ideological grifter 

ah, add mind reader to your signature 

> How your can look at the assignment instructions and the essay and conclude that the essay met the assignment requirements is beyond me.

because I actually read the assignment