BOSTON — In a federal court hearing in Boston, the parents of a high school senior from Massachusetts contended that their son faced unjust consequences for utilizing artificial intelligence while working on a history assignment, negatively affecting his chances for admission to a prestigious college.
The parents’ attorneys stated that the lawsuit highlights broader concerns regarding the integration of AI in educational settings. Although a federal judge did not deliver a ruling on the matter right away, the case was initially filed in state court before being escalated to the federal level at the request of the defendants, as noted by the family’s lawyer.
The senior, identified as the son of Dale and Jennifer Harris, was partnered with another student in an honors class and selected to write a paper focused on NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, particularly emphasizing his contributions to civil rights.
The lawsuit claims that the teacher, Susan Petrie, did not specifically disallow the use of AI during the research and preparation phase of the assignment.
However, when Ms. Petrie discovered that the students incorporated AI in their project, the Harrises stated that their son received a failing grade and was assigned to a Saturday detention. As a result, he was excluded from the National Honor Society, which further diminished his college application prospects.
Nancy Correnti, chair of the Hingham School Committee, which is also named in the lawsuit, stated via email that she could not comment on the ongoing legal proceedings due to respecting the student’s privacy.
Following the hearing, Peter Farrell, the parents’ attorney, emphasized that the case is now under judicial consideration and expressed confidence in the court’s process.
In a legal response, school officials justified their actions, indicating that the student did not face severe disciplinary measures like expulsion or suspension. They characterized the punishment as appropriate for a serious violation involving the unauthorized use of AI, maintaining that the student failed to properly acknowledge his use of AI.
The teacher realized the AI usage during routine reviews of the students’ work, supplemented with the help of a tool designed to detect AI-generated content, which she identified in the endnotes.
After being informed, the student was allowed to redo the paper but ultimately received a grade of D on the second attempt after the original assignment was deemed never to have been completed.
The lawsuit argues that the use of AI was not explicitly banned at the school and demands that the student’s grade be reinstated to a B while asking for the removal of any disciplinary records from his transcript.
The complaint alleges that the teacher’s actions infringed on their minor son’s civil rights and his right to equal educational opportunities, claiming that he was denied due process. Moreover, it contends that colleges like Stanford University do not consider applicants with disciplinary issues, further complicating the student’s college aspirations.
Additionally, the lawsuit notes that the student handbook lacked any clear policies regarding the use of AI in projects.
The parents seek a court order prohibiting the defendants from categorizing the use of AI as cheating and demand an end to the restrictions preventing the student from joining the National Honor Society.
Peter Farrell stated that AI-generated content ought not to be regarded as plagiarism since it does not originate from another human. He described it as an evolving partnership between human creativity and machine assistance, urging society to address the implications of AI’s integration into education.
Farrell also pointed out that the debate surrounding the appropriate role of AI in public schools is ongoing, and lamented that their student has become a focal point of this crucial transitional phase.
