By SAFIYAH RIDDLE

An instructor at the University of Oklahoma has been placed on leave after a student complained that she received a failing grade on a paper that cited the Bible to assert that the “belief in multiple genders” was “demonic.”

Samantha Fulnecky, 20, filed a complaint with the administration, the latest flashpoint in the ongoing debate over academic freedom on college campuses amid President Donald Trump’s push to end diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and restrict how campuses discuss issues of race, gender and sexuality.

“OU remains firmly committed to fairness, respect and protecting every student’s right to express sincerely held religious beliefs,” the university wrote in a statement on X. The school added that the failing grade would not affect Fulnecky’s academic standing while the administration investigated the matter.

The assignment was for a psychology class about lifespan development. Students were asked to write a 650-word response to an academic study that examined whether conformity with gender norms was associated with popularity among middle school students.

Fulnecky wrote that she was frustrated by the premise of the article because she doesn’t believe that there are more than two genders based on her understanding of the Bible, according to a copy of her essay provided to The Oklahoman.

“Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth,” she wrote.

She argued that promoting the belief in multiple genders would lead society to move “farther from God’s original plan for humans.”

The essays were graded out of 25 points, broken down by whether the student demonstrated an understanding of the article and addressed a specific aspect of the argument put forth. Fulnecky received zero points for her work.

“Please note that I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs,” the instructor wrote in feedback obtained by The Oklahoman. Instead, the instructor said the paper did “not answer the questions for the assignment.”

The paper “contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive” the criticism went on.

A contact for the instructor, whose name has not been confirmed by the university, was not immediately available.

Fulnecky’s complaint to the administration soon went viral after the school’s chapter of Turning Point USA, a conservative group founded by Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated in September, posted about Fulnecky’s experience on the social media site X.

“Professors like this are the very reason conservatives can’t voice their beliefs in the classroom,” the group posted.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt appeared to affirm that perspective, posting on X that the situation was “deeply concerning.”

“I’m calling on the OU regents to review the results of the investigation & ensure other students aren’t unfairly penalized for their beliefs,” he wrote.

The firestorm comes after a professor at Texas A&M was fired earlier this year after a video where a student confronted the instructor over her teaching of issues related to gender identity in a class on children’s literature went viral. A university committee in late November ruled that the firing was without good cause, and flouted formal procedure.

Since Trump took office, student affinity groups have shuttered campus offices and professors have altered curriculums. The president has also threatened federal funding for schools who don’t comply with standards for teaching, admissions and gender in sports supported by the administration. Both supporters and opponents of the Trump administration’s campaign say that freedom of speech is at stake.

By LISA MASCARO

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon knew there were survivors after a September attack on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean Sea and the U.S. military still carried out a follow-up strike, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Related Articles

White House tours resume in time for Christmas, but they’re different than before

4 Republican states will help Homeland Security obtain driver’s license records

US adds more penalties to those linked to Tren de Aragua gang

The US will restrict visas for Nigerians and their families involved in violence against Christians

Pentagon watchdog finds Hegseth’s use of Signal posed risk to US personnel, AP sources say

The rationale for the second strike was that it was needed to sink the vessel, according to the people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss it publicly. The Trump administration says all 11 people aboard were killed.

What remains unclear was who ordered the strikes and whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was involved, one of the people said. That will be part of a classified congressional briefing Thursday with the commander that the Trump administration says ordered the second strike, Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley.

Hegseth has defended the second strike as emerging in the “fog of war,” saying he didn’t see any survivors but also “didn’t stick around” for the rest of the mission.

Hegseth is under growing scrutiny over the military strikes on alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. Legal experts and some lawmakers say a strike that killed survivors would have violated the laws of armed conflict.

A Manhattan judge has ordered OpenAI to provide the Pioneer Press and other news outlets with millions of anonymous chats between ChatGPT and its users in a major ongoing copyright infringement case.

In a nine-page order made public Wednesday, Manhattan Magistrate Judge Ona Wang denied OpenAI’s request to reconsider her November ruling requiring the tech giant to hand over 20 million ChatGPT output logs to the media outlets.

The newspapers want to analyze a sample of ChatGPT’s consumer logs to test its language-learning model to see whether and how it’s propagating journalists’ work.

The ruling comes in a major consolidated class-action lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI initiated in 2023, in which The New York Times and news outlets affiliated with Tribune Publishing and MediaNews Group allege the artificial intelligence company is stealing and distorting their copyrighted works. The Authors Guild and a litany of best-selling writers are also parties in the complex litigation.

“OpenAI’s leadership was hallucinating when they thought they could get away with withholding evidence about how their business model relies on stealing from hardworking journalists, and we look forward to holding them accountable for their ongoing misappropriation of our work. They should pay for the copyright-protected work they use to build and maintain their apps and products, and they know it,” said Frank Pine, executive editor of MediaNews Group and Tribune Publishing, in a statement.

Spokespeople and lawyers for OpenAI did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but a spokesman for Open AI pointed Reuters to a company blog post that said the request to turn over the chats “disregards long-standing privacy protections” and “breaks with common-sense security practices.”

But in the decision, Wang reaffirmed that users’ privacy was not in jeopardy, noting that OpenAI had almost completed an internal process to anonymize the chats. Also mitigating privacy risks raised by OpenAI are the “multiple layers of protection in this case precisely because of the highly sensitive and private nature of much of the discovery that is exchanging hands,” the judge wrote.

She found the A.I. conversations were “clearly relevant” to the news outlets’ claims that they contain partial or complete reproductions of their copyrighted works and to OpenAI’s defense that they contain other user activity.

“News Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery on both,” the judge wrote.

“Production of the 20 Million ChatGPT Logs is also proportional to the needs of the case. The total universe of retained consumer output logs is in the tens of billions. The 20 million sample here represents less than 0.05% of the total logs that OpenAI has retained in the ordinary course of business.”

Wang wrote that once the tech behemoth has completed the deidentification process, it will have 7 days to hand over the data. OpenAI has also appealed Wang’s November order to Manhattan Federal Judge Sidney Stein, the district judge overseeing the case.

The sizable 20 million chats represent a fraction of the billions of output logs ChatGPT has retained, Wang noted in her Wednesday order.

Steven Lieberman, an attorney for MediaNews Group and Tribune Publishing, in a statement pointed to Wang’s finding that OpenAI had withheld “critically important evidence” when it was first requested and rejected the tech giant’s arguments to the contrary.

“The Court also raised the issue of whether OpenAI’s efforts to delay production of the ChatGPT logs was motivated by an improper purpose, saying of the two possible explanations for OpenAI’s behavior: [n]either bode well for OpenAI.”

When the longest government shutdown in U.S. history ended recently, Republicans mostly got what they wanted: A spending bill was passed, the government was reopened and Democrats’ main demand — a deal to extend expiring Obamacare subsidies — was deferred. Now Republicans must deliver on a health care compromise, lest millions of Americans get stuck with big bills come January.

At issue is the expiration of COVID-era benefits for Affordable Care Act enrollees. When the ACA passed in 2010, lawmakers included a provision that would help reduce monthly costs: subsidized premiums for beneficiaries earning less than 400% of the federal poverty level (about $45,000 at the time). During the pandemic, Congress increased such assistance and expanded it to higher earners. The Inflation Reduction Act extended those changes until Dec. 31.

Letting the enhanced subsidies expire will be disruptive. On average, enrollees’ out-of-pocket premiums will double. Older, relatively higher earners will be among the hardest hit. According to one analysis, premiums for a 60-year-old couple earning $85,000 would climb by $1,883 a month, or $22,600 annually. While lower earners may see milder increases — monthly payments could rise to, say, $15 from zero — experts worry that higher premiums will push healthier people to drop coverage, further increasing costs for those who stay enrolled. Perhaps 4 million people will become uninsured.

Neither party wants to see that happen, least of all before midterm elections next year. Yet extending the subsidies permanently as Democrats wish — at $350 billion over a decade — is likely a nonstarter. Beyond the large sum, critics object to the flow of payments, which go straight to insurers. With taxpayers footing the bill, health plans have done little to contain costs. Consider that premiums on ACA exchanges have risen almost twice as fast as the employer-based market since 2014. A temporary extension, as the White House appears to support, would do little to resolve this.

Ideally, any compromise would soften the shock of lost subsidies while slowing the growth of federal spending. The first is best achieved by eliminating the subsidy cutoff at 400% of the poverty line. Economists have long disliked benefits cliffs, which penalize work and higher pay, and the cost of eliminating the threshold would be relatively modest. (Expenditures per enrollee shrink as incomes rise.) Lawmakers could offset the additional spending by increasing enrollees’ share of premiums for the highest earners — lowered to 8.5% of household income during the pandemic — while restoring assistance for lower earners to pre-COVID levels.

Republicans haven’t been notably serious about health care in recent years, but some reasonable proposals are emerging. One would direct funds previously earmarked for insurers into tax-advantaged health-savings accounts. Once consumers gain control over their dollars, the thinking goes, insurers would be forced to compete for their business and lower costs. As currently envisioned, the idea will be difficult to implement before the deadline. It’s also too narrow, applying only to ACA plans with the lowest premiums and highest deductibles. But a revised version that ensured funds can be used more liberally would be a step in the right direction.

Beyond the immediate negotiations, lawmakers should be thinking bigger about how to restrain costs. Paramount should be giving consumers more choice, including those in the much larger employer-sponsored market. Gradually allowing more flexibility to pick a health plan — be it short-term coverage or a public option — should increase competition and improve care without destabilizing the market. A program that’s easily executed and avoids immediate disruption (such as eliminating the cliff) might be supplemented with such reforms in the future.

For now, a bipartisan agreement that extends and reforms subsidies would be the right thing for taxpayers and enrollees alike. Without a longer-term plan, though, America’s soaring health care costs threaten to become one more crisis in the making.

— The Bloomberg Opinion Editorial Board