Student punished for AI use, court backs school’s decision

The increasing prevalence of AI tools in education has led to one of the first federal court rulings on AI-assisted academic dishonesty, setting a potential precedent for how schools handle similar cases.

The core dispute: A Massachusetts high school student received disciplinary action after using AI to complete an AP US History assignment, prompting his parents to file a lawsuit against Hingham High School.

• The student, identified as RNH, and a classmate were caught copying and pasting text from Grammarly‘s AI tool, including citations to nonexistent books
• School officials issued failing grades for portions of the project, assigned Saturday detention, and temporarily barred RNH from the National Honor Society
• The students were given an opportunity to redo the assignment

Evidence of misconduct: Digital forensics and traditional academic oversight methods revealed clear indicators of AI use and academic dishonesty.

• Turnitin.com flagged the submission as AI-generated content
• The student spent only 52 minutes on the document, compared to the typical 7-9 hours invested by classmates
• Analysis showed direct copying and pasting from AI-generated content, including fabricated source citations

Legal arguments: The school’s position centered on established academic integrity policies rather than specific AI regulations.

• The school handbook explicitly prohibited “unauthorized use of technology” and “unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author”
• Parents Dale and Jennifer Harris argued that no specific rules existed regarding AI use
• U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Levenson sided with school officials, finding they had “the better of the argument on both the facts and the law”

Judicial reasoning: The court’s decision emphasized traditional academic integrity principles over technical distinctions about AI use.

• The judge determined there was no violation of the student’s due process rights
• The ruling supported the school’s position that this represented straightforward academic dishonesty rather than a nuanced debate about AI usage
• The court found that public interest aligned with maintaining academic integrity standards

Future implications: This landmark ruling suggests schools may successfully enforce existing academic integrity policies against AI-assisted cheating, even without specific AI-focused regulations.

• The case highlights the growing challenge of balancing educational technology with academic honesty
• Schools may need to update their policies to explicitly address AI tools while maintaining traditional academic integrity standards
• The ruling could influence how other educational institutions approach similar cases nationwide