“`html
izusek/Getty Images
- Parents in Massachusetts are taking legal action against a school after their son was penalized for employing AI.
- The family asserts that their academically successful son only used AI to assist with his paper preparation, not to compose it.
- A law professor indicated that the integration of AI tools into academic assignments is now “deeply ingrained.”
The parents of a high school student from Massachusetts have initiated a lawsuit against Hingham High School, alleging that their child was unjustly disciplined for incorporating artificial intelligence into a history project.
Jennifer and Dale Harris filed the complaint last month against the school’s administration and district officials, claiming they imposed “arbitrary and capricious” penalties on their son.
According to documents submitted to federal court, the parents contend that their child was reprimanded for using AI solely to “develop the initial outline and conduct research” for an essay about a civil rights leader.
The Harrises emphasized in their filing that no AI was utilized in writing the actual paper, which included proper citations and a works cited page.
“They accused our son of cheating on his assignment, which simply isn’t true,” Jennifer Harris shared with WCVB-TV.
This incident resulted in Saturday detention for the student, his Social Studies grade plummeting to C+, and he allegedly faced exclusion from induction into the National Honor Society as claimed by his parents.
The lawsuit portrays him as an exemplary student: he is described as excelling in three varsity sports while maintaining an impressive GPA. He achieved 1520 on his SATs and received perfect scores on his ACT. The family noted he is applying to prestigious institutions such as Stanford University due to his outstanding academic record and personal accomplishments.
The Harrises seek rectification of their son’s grade, arguing that failure to do so will significantly hinder his chances of admission at Stanford along with impacting future earning potential adversely.
In their legal argument, they assert that Hingham High School punished their son based on an ambiguous policy regarding AI usage—one they claim fails to clearly delineate acceptable use or consequences for misuse.
“Essentially, he was penalized under rules that don’t exist,” Jennifer Harris remarked during her interview with WCBV-TV.
She expressed hope that the school would establish clear guidelines regarding appropriate use of AI technology moving forward.
No immediate response has been provided by attorneys representing Hingham High School when approached by Business Insider for comments regarding this case.
A review of this year’s Hingham High School Student Handbook reveals expectations surrounding conduct; it states unauthorized technology use—including Artificial Intelligence (AI)—during assessments may be classified as cheating or plagiarism. However, it lacks specific guidance about permissible uses of AI tools within academic work contexts.
Navigating Challenges Surrounding Artificial Intelligence Use in Education
An Increasing Concern Among Educators
According to findings from Study.com’s 2023 survey involving 203 K-12 teachers, approximately 26% reported having caught students engaging in dishonest practices using ChatGPT.
Matthew Sag—a law professor specializing in artificial intelligence at Emory University Law School—criticized the school’s handbook policy as being “hopelessly vague.” He pointed out its failure both to define what constitutes “unauthorized” usage or specify prohibited technologies.
Sag further questioned: “Can students utilize AI tools merely for studying purposes? What about drafting papers or grammar checks? Is spell-check considered artificial intelligence? How does text prediction fit into this?”
He concluded by stating such ambiguity leaves students uncertain about acceptable practices while facing severe repercussions if they misinterpret these unclear guidelines.
Ryan Abbott—a law professor at Surrey University focusing on artificial intelligence—observed how prevalent student use of these technologies has become despite prohibitions; accurately detecting such instances remains challenging.
Abbott acknowledged existing detection methods employed by schools often yield inaccurate results leading disputes like this one likely becoming more frequent over time.
Meanwhile John Zerilli—a law professor affiliated with Edinburgh University—asserted integrating artificial intelligence within educational assessments has become nearly standard practice today. He advocates schools should adapt curricula accordingly rather than resist technological advancements affecting learning environments.
Peter Farrell—the attorney representing Harris’s family—noted: “With college application deadlines approaching rapidly; our client faces serious jeopardy due solely because disciplinary actions were taken without any explicit prohibition outlined within established policies.”
“`
