The Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) revolution is well underway, and recent litigation highlights the need for well-crafted and comprehensive AI policies. In late September 2024, a family in Hingham, Massachusetts sued the Town of Hingham School Committee, teachers and administrators (the “Defendants”) after their son, a rising senior at Hingham High School, received a D on a project due to his use of AI. The case is captioned Dale and Jennifer Harris, as Parents of RNH[1] v. Margaret Adams et al., Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-12437-WGY, and is pending in federal court in Boston (the “Lawsuit”). In addition to relief sought in the complaint, the family seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent irreparable harm to RNH in connection with the college admissions process, as well as his future career opportunities and earning potential.
RNH and a Fellow Classmate used AI to Prepare for a Project
In December 2023, while RNH was a junior, he and another classmate teamed up for a social studies project for a long-running historical contest. The project was assigned by the students’ teacher, who, according to the Lawsuit, did not prohibit the use of AI to prepare for or research the project. RNH and his classmate used AI to prepare the initial outline and research for their project, but not the final product. After conducting a spot check of the students’ work, their teacher accused them of cheating on the assignment due to their use of AI for preparation and research. RNH separately re-did the assignment from scratch but still received a D on the project, along with other punishments including Saturday detention and exclusion from the National Honors Society.
No Written AI Policy
The merits of the Lawsuit hinge on the absence of any AI-specific policy in place at Hingham High School at the time of the alleged misconduct. While the high school’s Student Handbook generally prohibited academic dishonesty on school assignments, including a prohibition on the “unauthorized use of technology during an assessment,” it was entirely silent on and contained no outright prohibition on the use of AI. Moreover, none of the written instructions accompanying the assignment mentioned anything about AI or indicated that the use of AI was prohibited. The Student Handbook has since been revised to address the use of AI.
Civil Rights At Stake
The Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Defendants violated RNH’s civil rights through its actions, and that those actions have harmed and will continue to harm RNH’s college prospects, potential future earnings, earning capacity, income, and career potential. Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction from the court that would require the Defendants to restore RNH’s grade to a B and expunge any disciplinary record. They are further seeking an order from the court that would retroactively induct RNH into the National Honor Society and require the Defendants to undergo training for AI use in the classroom, among other forms of relief. The family argues that RNH will suffer permanent, irreparable harm if the court does not grant an injunction prior to a final decision on the merits of the Lawsuit, given the fact that the college admissions process is already underway for the year. There was a hearing on the preliminary injunction on Tuesday, October 22, 2024. Magistrate Judge Paul G. Levenson took the matter under advisement and a decision will be forthcoming.
AI Is Everywhere
The Lawsuit highlights the critical importance of clearly-written AI Policies. The presence of AI is no longer hypothetical. AI is here to stay and its uses and applications are ever growing. In their filings, Plaintiffs argue that a school’s policies — here a Student Handbook that did not contain a specific reference to AI — serve “as a vital tool in establishing clear expectations for behavior, conduct, and discipline among students.” The rules, policies, and guidelines therein provide “a consistent framework that helps maintain order and fairness” within a community. Though there is dispute among the parties as to whether there were clear expectations about the use of AI, the Lawsuit makes clear that organizations, and educational institutions in particular, need to set forth clear direction and expectations regarding AI’s use. Relying on the use of AI to justify disciplinary action in the absence of clearly-written AI policies can and will result in litigation.
As we have highlighted in prior publications, AI systems bring not only benefits but also dangers.
Accordingly, schools and universities need to ensure they take the following steps:
- Educate themselves on the possible uses of AI in their unique environments.
- Ensure the existence of clear and comprehensive AI policies, and incorporate AI guidance into existing academic integrity policies, codes of conduct, and employment policies.
- Emphasize expectations and direction regarding the use of AI through education and training and provide practical guidance and examples of expected conduct.
- Track developments in AI in order to ensure policies and practices are consistent with the evolving landscape.
- Employ appropriate AI content detection tools.
- Regularly assess and update policies, trainings, and communications.
Our attorneys are knowledgeable about AI and the current legal landscape, and its intersection with policy. We have experience drafting and counseling our clients on AI policies and their application. Please reach out to the authors or your Hinckley Allen attorney if you have any questions or need assistance.
[1] The minor son is referred to as “RNH” in court filings.
