Someone Asked Grok To Grade The Oklahoma Student's Bible-Based Essay—And Cue The MAGA Outrage

Recently, University of Oklahoma graduate student Mel Curth was placed on administrative leave after giving conservative student Samantha Fulnecky a zero on a psychology essay about gender after Fulnecky used the Bible as her only source—and now MAGA fans who were already furious about the whole thing are bound to get even angrier after X's AI chatbot Grok did the same.

Curth, a transgender woman, assigned her students a 650-word essay about how gender stereotypes impact societal expectations of individuals. Fulnecky instead wrote about what the Bible says about "traditional gender roles," arguing that to refer to them as "stereotypes" is "demonic."

Curth began their feedback to Fulnecky by stressing that the grade was not penalized over the student’s personal views, but instead reflected the fact that she failed to follow the assignment guidelines, contradicted her own arguments, included offensive remarks, and offered no empirical support.

Mel Curth/University of Oklahoma

Fulnecky appealed the grade, and the clash garnered further attention after the conservative group Turning Point USA revealed Curth to be transgender and claimed that we should "not be letting mentally ill professors around students." The organization said Curth "lacks the intellectual maturity to set her own bias aside and take grading seriously."

Then one social media user, responding to another person's post about the scandal, pointed out that even X's AI chatbot had given Fulnecky a failing grade for the assignment.

Grok determined that Fulnecky's essay contained almost no accurate summary of the article; in fact, while "one sentence vaguely mentions 'gender norms,'" Fulnecky "never names the study, methods, or findings." Fulnecky also didn't cite any evidence—her "repeated assertions that non-binary gender is 'demonic' and a 'lie from Satan' are presented as fact without evidence."

Fulnecky scored no points for clarity, organization, and grammar due to "multiple run-on sentences, shifting verb tenses, and repetitive phrasing. Grok concluded her argument is "circular" and that the essay contains "inflammatory language targeting LGBTQ+ people that is irrelevant to the article."

The essay, at 743 words, was also already over the word limit and received an "automatic 5-point deduction." The essay lacked citations, a reference list, and did not engage with Curth's assigned prompt.

Fulnecky's final score? 0/25.

You can see Grok's assessment below.

@pauliegeronimo/X

The mockery was swift.

And there you have it! The verdict is in.

Accusations of bias fall apart on closer inspection: Fulnecky was free to express her views in class and suffered no penalty beyond receiving a failing grade for submitting an essay that did not address the assigned prompt.

She has a bright future as a MAGA grifter.