Parents Sue School Over AI Punishment

In Massachusetts, a family has filed a lawsuit against the Hingham Public School district, alleging that the school unfairly punished their son for using AI on an AP US History assignment.

Dale and Jennifer Harris filed the lawsuit. They claim their son, a student at Hingham High School, was recently accused of using AI on an assignment. The school opted to punish him by giving him a 65 on the assignment, one point above failing, and having him serve a Saturday detention.

However, the parents claim that the punishment went beyond that. They claim that he was not allowed to join the National Honor Society and that the incident harmed his college application process.

The parents also argue that the school has no official policy on AI use and that any rules it does have are invalid since the state’s education authority has not provided official guidance. They also claim their son did not use AI to draft the assignment; instead, he only used it for research.

However, the school notes that it does have a policy forbidding “unauthorized technology.” It also has a rule that bars passing off the language or thoughts of another as one’s own. They also say they have since allowed the student to join the National Honors Society.

The school district has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. They cite these and other alleged failings in the case.

However, if the lawsuit moves forward, it will be one of the first legal challenges for schools enforcing AI policies. It has the potential to set a precedent that could steer AI’s future use in schools.

Academic Integrity Meets Real Courts

Note: Despite multiple attempts and approaches, I have not been able to obtain a copy of the original complaint. When and if I can access it, I will update this article.

We’ve discussed what happens when academic integrity disputes spill into the legal system. However, these disputes usually involve university-level academics, especially when students are denied degrees or have them revoked.

It’s much less common to see such lawsuits against public schools.

This is for various reasons. For one, the stakes, particularly the financial stakes, are much lower at public schools. Second, courts have given schools broad discretion when handing out punishments.

To that end, the district cites the Supreme Court case Goss v. Lopez in its motion to dismiss. The case established a due process right for students facing suspension for more than ten days. However, since the student in this case was never suspended, the district argues they met their due process burden.

The district even describes the discipline they handed down as “lenient,” given the severity of the allegations. That leniency may be their strongest argument because of the Goss ruling.

Likewise, the parents’ argument about the lack of an AI policy is equally weak. Not only does the motion to dismiss show they did have a policy, but the broad “unauthorized technology” clause should serve as a catchall for it.

Despite the weak chances for success, it’s profoundly disconcerting that parents are taking a school to court to change their child’s grade. Futurism called it “Helicopter parenting in the age of AI,” and it is difficult to argue otherwise.

Ultimately, it seems unlikely that the lawsuit will succeed. Between the lenient punishment and the general deference courts give schools, this lawsuit appears to be a long shot at best.

Questions That Linger

That said, a few questions still linger. First, it’s unclear how the school determined the student had used AI. Though, according to its response, the school uses Turnitin, it’s unclear how they determined that the student used AI.

The determination wasn’t wholly wrong, as the parents acknowledged some AI use, but we don’t know much about the process leading up to the allegations. Likewise, we don’t know what, if any, steps the school took to validate the allegations.

Though AI detection is rapidly improving, such systems still make false positives, and I hope the school had additional information before making the allegation.

Second, why would the student think that using AI is acceptable? Even if we accept the plaintiff’s claims that he used AI just for research, why would he think that is acceptable?

To be clear, I doubt this highly. But why would the student or his parents think this is acceptable? AI has been a hot topic for two years now. The general message for students has been that if it’s not expressly allowed, avoid it.

Why did the student, who seems to be doing very well in school, opt to use AI for any purpose?

It’s a question that, most likely, only he knows the answer to.

Bottom Line

In the end, this lawsuit is a warning to both students and schools.

For schools, it’s important to ensure that your AI policies are clear, that students/parents are aware of them and that you have a process for handling such cases. Parents and students will look for any weakness to challenge these policies, both in and out of court.

Any non-permitted use of AI is dangerous for students. We’ve discussed why many are turning away from services like Grammarly. While that may be an extreme reaction, it’s an understandable one.

To be clear, proving that someone used AI is still challenging. However, as this case shows, schools don’t have to present a great deal of evidence to justify most punishments. Most likely, the courts won’t be able to help if you feel you were treated unfairly.

While it’s impossible to know what happened in this case, it seems likely that the student used AI in a way that was inappropriate for the assignment. The school appears to have a strong case here, and schools generally have deference in such cases.

As such, this case seems like a long shot. However, it’s still worth following. If the judge dismisses the case, it will be important to know why. If the case beats the odds and moves forward, it could become one of the most important cases for schools in the United States, especially regarding AI.

So, while it is an unusual case, it’s the unusual cases that often have the most significant impact.

Photo Credit: John Phelan, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons