Massachusetts parents sue after son got a ‘D’ on paper for using AI

Shortly after their son received a “D” grade for using AI on a history assignment at Hingham High School, his parents filed a lawsuit, claiming that “artificial intelligence is here to stay “.

“Although artificial intelligence is a new technology and still emerging, it is widely accepted. Businesses, other industries, academia and even the legal profession are still grappling with how to approach its use,” states a complaint filed last month in Plymouth County Superior Court and recently filed in federal court in Boston.

The lawsuit is novel, as Duxbury attorney Peter Farrell writes in the complaint that “it is a case of first impression in the Commonwealth” — meaning it “presents a legal question which has never been decided by the prevailing jurisdiction,” according to the Wex Legal Dictionary of Cornell University.

Hingham residents Dale and Jennifer Harris do not dispute that their son did not use AI to write his article about basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s civil rights work. Instead, they argue that he was not expressly prohibited from using the technology and therefore it should not count against him.

They also complain that it cost him a dismissal from the National Honor Society, which could negatively impact his college dreams.

The defendants, including former Hingham Public Schools superintendent Margaret Adams — who has since accepted a job with Everett Public Schools — the boy’s teacher and school committee members, countered in a motion to dismiss the fact that the student “received relatively lenient treatment and measured discipline for a serious infraction, using artificial intelligence on a project, amounted to far less than a suspension.”

“This lawsuit is not about the expulsion, or even the suspension, of a high school student,” states the motion filed in federal court. “Instead, the dispute concerns a student… dissatisfied with a letter grade in the AP US History course, having to attend a “Saturday” detention, and his exclusion from the NHS – rudimentary student discipline administered for a violation of academic integrity. »

“Defendants must adhere to the just and lawful discipline imposed,” the motion states. “Otherwise, they invite dissatisfied parents and students to challenge daily discipline, and even student grading, in state and federal courts. »

The son is a rising senior who, according to the complaint, “excelled academically and athletically and is well known for his commitment to the community and his character; so much so that he is applying early action or decision to elite colleges and universities based on his academic record,” with Stanford University specifically named.

The boy, a three-sport varsity student-athlete, is named in the complaint filed in Superior Court, but he will be anonymous here because he is a minor.

According to the complaint, the matter stems from the student’s assignment, with a partner, for a project as part of the “long-running historical competition known colloquially as ‘National History Day'” in the Susan Petrie’s AP US History class in the second quarter of the school year. previous school year.

The Harris boy and his partner were only able to enter the preliminary stages of the project when Petrie’s “spot check” of their work revealed the presence of AI-generated content. The teacher accused them of cheating, according to the complaint.

Petrie and Andrew Hoey, chair of the school’s history department, told the students that they would each have to start new projects separately, that they would not be able to use any of their previous work and that they would not be able to all use AI.

The student at the heart of the complaint received a 0/20 for the notes portion of his project, a 0/30 for the draft portion, and a 65/100 for the final paper – a D, “despite the fact that he was forced to start the project from scratch and never received such a low grade on a final written project.

The complaint argues that the use of the AI ​​was not explicitly prohibited by the teacher or by the school’s academic integrity policy in effect at the time in question.

The complaint was filed on September 16. The defendants filed a response approximately a week later requesting that the case be transferred to Federal Court because the underlying legal argument asserts a claim based on federal law.

A hearing is scheduled for October 22 at 9 a.m.