A professor who failed a student for using the term “biological woman” in an assignment was officially reprimanded and ordered to complete free speech training.

Adjunct instructor Melanie Nipper, 29, received an official reprimand from the University of Cincinnati weeks after she gave her student Olivia Krolczyk a ‘zero’ on her final project proposal for using the term “biological woman” in Nipper’s class, Gender in Popular Culture.

Obtained by The Cincinatti Enquirer, the June reprimand stated, “To prevent any further violation of [the free speech] policy, you must complete training on the requirements of the Campus Free Speech Policy. Through the end of Academic Year 2024/2025, you must submit all syllabi to … me at least two weeks prior to the beginning of classes for review and approval.”

The reprimand continued, threatening Nipper with termination. “Any other violations of UC policy may be subject to … termination. You are reminded that … your employment may be terminated with or without cause.”

The reprimand was issued against Nipper by Ashley Currier, the head of the Department of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Cincinnati.

The professor appealed the decision five days later, stating that her “restriction on harmful speech” was “necessary to ensure a safe learning environment” and that “the topic itself was inappropriate as it targeted trans women as a source of oppression for cis women in sports.” 

Nipper continued, “Additionally, as the class has students that identify as gender non-conforming and/or trans, I felt it was necessary to educate her regarding inclusive language to ensure a safe learning environment for other students.”

The incident that prompted the reprimand received national attention when Krolczyk posted a video on TikTok describing how Nipper gave her a failing grade because “biological woman” was, according to the professor, “trans-exclusionary.” 

For a final project, Nipper asked students to pick a research topic on feminism, and Krolczyk proposed to study women’s rights in athletics, from securing women’s place in the Olympic Games to trans-identifying men in women’s sports.

Nipper told the sophomore chemistry major, “Olivia, this is a solid proposal. However, the terms “biological women” are exclusionary and are not allowed in this course as they further reinforce heteronormativity. Please reassess your topic and edit it to focus on women’s rights (not just “females”) and I’ll regrade.”

“How am I supposed to do my project if I can’t use the term ‘biological women?’” Krolczyk questioned in her TikTok video. 

The sophomore reported the incident to the school, and the university’s Gender Equality Office agreed to have a different professor grade Krolczyk’s assignment.  Krolczyk eventually finished Nipper’s class with an A.

This controversy comes amid a broader clash between LGBTQ activists and the principles of free speech, as an Oxford college recently threatened students with expulsion if they use the wrong gender pronouns, and as the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced free speech protections in 303 Creative v. Elenis. 

If you’re a Harvard student signed up to take an introductory coding course this fall, an AI chatbot might be one of your instructors. 

Beginning in the fall semester, one of Harvard University’s flagship coding courses, CS50: Introduction to Computer Science, will implement artificial intelligence in the instruction of its students, The Harvard Crimson reported. The chatbot will assist students, but a professor will still be the main instructor in the course.

“Our own hope is that, through AI, we can eventually approximate a 1:1 teacher:student ratio for every student in CS50, as by providing them with software-based tools that, 24/7, can support their learning at a pace and in a style that works best for them individually,” Professor David Malan, who instructs CS50, told the newspaper.

The AI chatbot will answer questions, assist in finding bugs in students’ code, and explain coding error messages, Malan told the paper. The chatbot will be “similar in spirit” to ChatGPT and help both professors and students, the New York Post reports. Instead of simply handing the answer to students, Malan insists the tech will be “leading students toward an answer” and won’t give “outright solutions.” 

The answers the chatbot gives students can also be reviewed by human course staff, the newspaper says. This feature is in its beta testing stage during the summer course. 

Malan conceded that artificial intelligence does make cheating easier and more anonymous for students, but says that using technology to cheat is nothing new. “Better, then, to weave all the more emphasis on ethics into a course so that students learn, through guidance, how to navigate these new waters,” Malan said. 

The course has always implemented software, Malan says, but the addition of artificial intelligence is an “evolution of that tradition.” Not everyone thinks this evolution is a good thing, though. Martin Rand, co-founder and CEO of software company PactumAI, warned of the downsides of the new development at Harvard. 

“I would say the dangers are that we have to consider that these are statistical models. These will come up with most probable answers and high probability can also mean mediocrity,” Rand told Fox in an interview. “So professors need to be there to provide exceptionalism, and I think Harvard has taken the right approach in providing this only to introductory courses.”

Malan said he doesn’t expect the chatbot to be without issues in the fall semester, telling the Crimson that it will “underperform or even err.” 

“We’ll make clear to students that they should always think critically when taking in information as input, be it from humans or software,” Malan said, adding that the technology will continue to improve with student and faculty feedback.