Parents sue school for punishing son for using AI, say it hurt his chances of going to college

A hot potato: Schools battling the trend of students using artificial intelligence may have another battle on their hands: parents who support their children’s use of AI. In Massachusetts, a school district is being sued by the mother and father of a boy who was punished for using a chatbot to complete an assignment, which they say was not explicitly prohibited, even though it seems to be.

The student in question, identified only by his initials, RNH, admitted to teachers at Hingham High School that he used AI to complete a social studies project in December. He claimed that the tool was only used for research purposes and not to write the entire document.

Despite his pleas of innocence, RNH and his classmate were taken into custody on Saturday and received a grade of 65 out of 100 for the assignment, as well as several zeros for different parts of the work. This means his average in the “college-level advanced placement course” would have dropped from 84 to 78. Both students were also not selected for the National Honor Society. That decision was later reversed, but not in time for RNH to ask the colleges for a quick decision.

RNH’s parents, Jennifer and Dale Harris, say it hurt his chances of getting into Stanford University and other elite schools, so they decided to sue.

Hingham High School

The defendants in the case, which is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, include Hingham’s superintendent, principal, a teacher, the head of the history department and the school committee.

The Harrises allege that Hingham High School’s student handbook does not explicitly prohibit the use of AI to complete assignments.

“Student Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm that far exceeds any harm that might befall Defendants,” their filing states.

“He is applying to elite colleges and universities because of his high level of academic and personal success. Applications for early decision and early action in a highly competitive admissions process are imminent and will begin in earnest on October 1, 2024. In the absence of an injunction before this Court, the student will suffer irreparable and imminent harm.

The plaintiffs want the incident removed from their son’s school record. They also request that he receive a B grade for this assignment and seek an order requiring the defendants “to complete training in the use and implementation of artificial intelligence in the classroom, schools, and community.” educational environment by a suitably qualified third party not employed by the district.” “.

“The defendants continued on a pervasive, destructive and merciless path of threats, intimidation and coercion to impact and derail (our son’s) future and exemplary record,” the Harris family alleges.

The school filed a motion to dismiss the case. He claims RNH and his classmates received a copy of the student handbook in the fall of last year. It prohibits “unauthorized use of technology, including artificial intelligence (AI), during a mission” and “unauthorized use or close imitation of another author’s language and thoughts and the representation of these as one’s own work. The class also received a copy of a “written policy on academic dishonesty and AI expectations,” which prohibits the use of AI tools unless explicitly authorized and instructed.

“Incredibly, RNH and its parents argue that the use of AI to write, edit, and research content for an AP US History project, without citing the use of AI in the project, is not a “ act of dishonesty”, an “unauthorized use of data”. technology” or “plagiarism”,” the defendants wrote.

“RNH unequivocally used the language and thoughts of another author, whether a digital and artificial author, without express authorization to do so,” the school claims.

“Furthermore, he did not mention his use of AI in his notes, his scripts, or in the draft he submitted. Importantly, RNH’s peers were not allowed to cut corners by using AI to develop their projects; thus, RNH acted ‘unfairly’ to gain an advantage.'”

Unless a settlement is reached, the case will go to court later this month.

Central image: John Phelan