Massachusetts student's punishment for AI use can stand, US judge rules
Judge says school's plagiarism policy was adequate
Parents argue son's due process rights were violated
Student initially rejected from National Honor Society, later admitted
Adds comment from parents' lawyer in paragraph 6
By Nate Raymond
BOSTON, Nov 21 (Reuters) -A federal judge has rejected a bid by the parents of a Massachusetts high school senior to force his school to expunge his disciplinary record and raise his history class grade after officials accused him of using an artificial intelligence program to cheat on a class assignment.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Levenson in Boston on Wednesday ruled that officials at Hingham High School reasonably concluded that the use of the AI tool by Jennifer and Dale Harris' son to complete a class project violated academic integrity rules.
The judge as a result declined to issue an order at a preliminary stage in the litigation that would force the school to expunge their son's disciplinary record and raise his AP U.S. History grade from a C-plus to a B.
Levenson said the emergence of generative AI "may present some nuanced challenges for educators." But he said the school's plagiarism policy was adequate to alert students they could not copy text from another source and pass it off as their own.
Gareth Norris, a lawyer for the school, called the ruling "factually accurate and legally sound."
Peter Farrell, the parents' attorney, called the ruling preliminary in nature and said they looked forward to further developing the factual record as the case continued.
The parents sued after school officials concluded in December 2023 that during their son's junior year, he cheated on an AP U.S. History assignment by copying and pasting text generated by an online AI tool, including citations to nonexistent books, without attribution.
As punishment, the student had to attend a Saturday detention and was rejected from the school's National Honor Society, though he was later allowed to reapply and gained admission.
His parents argued the school violated his due process rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution by not adequately informing him about how its academic honesty standards apply to the use of AI.
Their son testified that he had been confused about the rules regarding the use of AI, which students were allowed to use to generate ideas and identify sources.
Levenson said the evidence showed the teen and his class partner did not simply use AI to help formulate research topics but "indiscriminately" copied text produced by AI tool Grammarly and did not even review the "sources" it provided them.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Bill Berkrot and Christopher Cushing
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
