AI

A school district in Massachusetts was sued by a student’s parents after the boy was punished for using an artificial intelligence chatbot to complete an assignment. The lawsuit says the Hingham High School student handbook did not include a restriction on the use of AI.

“They told us our son cheated on a paper, which is not what happened,” Jennifer Harris told WCVB. “They basically punished him for a rule that doesn’t exist.”

Jennifer and her husband, Dale, filed the lawsuit in Plymouth County Superior Court, and the case was then moved to US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Defendants include the superintendent, principal, a teacher, the history department head, and the Hingham School Committee.

The student is referred to by his initials, RNH. The lawsuit alleges violations of the student’s civil rights, including “the Plaintiff Student’s personal and property rights and liberty to acquire, possess, maintain and protect his rights to equal educational opportunity.”

The defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, filed last week, said RNH admitted “that he used an AI tool to generate ideas and shared that he also created portions of his notes and scripts using the AI tool, and described the specific prompt that he put into the chatbot. RNH unequivocally used another author’s language and thoughts, be it a digital and artificial author, without express permission to do so. Furthermore, he did not cite to his use of AI in his notes, scripts or in the project he submitted.”

The school officials’ court filing points to a section of the student handbook on cheating and plagiarism. Although the section doesn’t mention AI, it bans “unauthorized use of technology during an assignment” and “unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own work.”

“Incredibly, RNH and his parents contend that using AI to draft, edit and research content for an AP US History project, all while not citing to use of AI in the project, is not an ‘act of dishonesty,’ ‘use of unauthorized technology’ or plagiarism,” defendants wrote.

School: Policy bans AI tools unless explicitly permitted

The parents’ motion for a preliminary injunction points to the same section of the student handbook and says it was “silent on any policy, procedure, expectation, conduct, discipline, sanction or consequence for the use of AI.” The use of AI was thus “not a violation” of the policy at the time, they say.

School officials cite more than just the student handbook section. They say that in fall 2023, RNH and his classmates were given a copy of a “written policy on Academic Dishonesty and AI expectations” that says students “shall not use AI tools during in-class examinations, processed writing assignments, homework or classwork unless explicitly permitted and instructed.”

The policy quoted in the court filing also says students should “give credit to AI tools whenever used, even if only to generate ideas or edit a small section of student work.” According to defendants, students were instructed to “add an appendix for every use of AI” with the following information:

• the entire exchange, highlighting the most relevant sections;
• a description of precisely which AI tools were used (e.g. ChatGPT private subscription version or Bard);
• an explanation of how the AI tools were used (e.g. to generate ideas, turns of phrase, identify elements of text, edit long stretches of text, build lines of argument, locate pieces of evidence, create concept or planning maps, illustrations of key concepts, etc.);
• an account of why AI tools were used (e.g. procrastination, to surmount writer’s block, to stimulate thinking, to manage stress level, to address mismanagement of time, to clarify prose, to translate text, to experiment with the technology, etc.).

The incident happened in December 2023 when RNH and a classmate “teamed up for a Social Studies project for the long-running historical contest known colloquially as ‘National History Day,'” the parents’ motion for a preliminary injunction said. The students “used AI to prepare the initial outline and research” for a project on basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and his work as a civil rights activist.

The parents’ motion alleges that RNH and his classmate were “unfairly and unjustly accused of cheating, plagiarism, and academic dishonesty.” The defendants “act[ed] as investigator, judge, jury, and executioner in determining the extreme and outrageous sanctions imposed upon these Students,” they allege. A hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction has been set for October 22.

Parents say it isn’t plagiarism

RNH and his classmate “receiv[ed] multiple zeros for different portions of the project” and a Saturday detention, the parents’ motion said. RNH was given a zero on the notes and rough draft portions of the project, and his overall grade on the final paper was 65 out of 100. His average in the “college-level, advanced placement course” allegedly dropped from 84 to 78. The students were also barred from selection for the National Honor Society.

“While there is much dispute as to whether the use of generative AI constitutes plagiarism, plagiarism is defined as the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own. During the project, RNH and his classmate did not take someone else’s work or ideas and pass them off as their own,” the motion said. The students “used AI, which generates and synthesizes new information.”

The National Honor Society exclusion was eventually reversed, but not in time for RNH’s applications to colleges for early decision, the parents allege. The initial lawsuit in Plymouth County Superior Court was filed on September 16 and said that RNH was still barred from the group at that time.

“This fall, the district allowed him to reapply for National Honor Society. He was inducted Oct. 8, but the student’s attorney says the damage had already been done,” according to the Patriot Ledger. “Peter Farrell, the student’s lawyer, said the reversal happened only after an investigation revealed that seven other students disciplined for academic dishonesty had been inducted into the National Honors Society, including one student censured for use of artificial intelligence.”

The motion said the punishment had “a significant, severe, and continuing impact on RNH’s future earning capacity, earning potential, and acceptance into an elite college or university course of study given his exemplary academic achievements.” The parents allege that “Defendants exceeded the authority granted to them in an abuse of authority, discretion, and unfettered state action by unfairly and unjustly acting as investigator, judge, jury, and executioner in determining the extreme and outrageous sanctions imposed upon these Students.”

Now “a senior at the top of his class,” RNH is “a three-sport varsity student-athlete, maintains a high grade point average, scored 1520 on his SAT, earned a perfect score on the ACT, and should receive a National Merit Scholarship Corporation Letter of Commendation,” the motion said. “In addition to his high level of academic and athletic achievement, RNH has substantial community service hours including working with cognitively impaired children playing soccer with the Special Needs Athletic Partnership known as ‘SNAP.'”

School defends “relatively lenient” discipline

In their motion to dismiss, school officials defended “the just and legitimate discipline rendered to RNH.”

“This lawsuit is not about the expulsion, or even the suspension, of a high school student,” the school response said. “Instead, the dispute concerns a student, RNH, dissatisfied with a letter grade in AP US History class, having to attend a ‘Saturday’ detention, and his deferral from NHS—rudimentary student discipline administered for an academic integrity violation. RNH was given relatively lenient and measured discipline for a serious infraction, using Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) on a project, amounting to something well less than a suspension. The discipline was consistent with the applicable Student Handbook.”

The defendants said the court “should not usurp [the] substantial deference given to schools over discipline. Because school officials are in the best position to determine when a student’s actions threaten the safety and welfare of other students, the SJC [Supreme Judicial Court] has stated that school officials must be granted substantial deference in their disciplinary choices.”

The parents’ motion for a preliminary injunction seeks an order requiring defendants “to immediately repair, restore and rectify Plaintiff Student’s letter grade in Social Studies to a grade of ‘B,'” and to expunge “any grade, report, transcript entry or record of discipline imposing any kind of academic sanction” from the incident.

The parents further request the exclusion of “any zero grade from grade calculations for the subject assignment” and an order prohibiting the school district “from characterizing the use of artificial intelligence by the Plaintiff Student as ‘cheating’ or classifying such use as an ‘academic integrity infraction’ or ‘academic dishonesty.'”

The parents also want an order requiring defendants “to undergo training in the use and implementation of artificial intelligence in the classroom, schools and educational environment by a duly qualified third party not employed by the District.”