WORK WITH US
Court Upholds Public School’s Discipline For Student’s AI Use
R.N.H., a current senior at Hingham High School, is a three-sport varsity student-athlete with a high GPA at the top of his class. He received a perfect score on the ACT, intending to apply early action to elite colleges and universities, which require applications to be submitted as early as Fall 2024.
At the beginning of the 2023-2024 academic year, Hingham High School students were taught rules regarding academic integrity and the use of AI during their English classes. These rules explicitly instructed students not to use AI for assignments unless explicitly permitted and instructed. It also required students to cite AI during approved use, including creating an appendix describing how and why AI tools were used.
R.N.H. and another student, both juniors at the time, were tasked with creating a script for a short documentary as part of an Advanced Placement (AP) U.S. History project associated with National History Day.
While AI tools were permitted for brainstorming and identifying sources, they were expressly prohibited for generating the script or substantive content. The script R.N.H. and his partner submitted was flagged as AI-generated by Turnitin.com, a plagiarism detection software, and further confirmed by other tools such as Revision History, Draft Back, and Chat Zero.
In particular, large portions of the script were directly copied and pasted from an AI tool, Grammarly.com, without any attribution. The script also contained fabricated citations (i.e., “hallucinations), including books that did not exist. Although R.N.H.’s submission did contain citations, it did not cite any AI tools.
R.N.H. met multiple times with his teacher and the head of the Social Studies Department. R.N.H. admitted that he had used Grammarly to “generate ideas” and “create portions” of the draft script, copying and pasting language directly from Grammarly into his submission. The School concluded that R.N.H.’s conduct constituted cheating and was a violation of the School’s Academic Integrity policies.
R.N.H. and his partner received failing grades on two parts of the multi-part project, but they were permitted to start from scratch, each working separately, to complete and submit the final project. As a result, R.N.H. received zeros on two components of the multi-part assignment, which significantly lowered his grade in the course from a B or B-minus to a C-plus.
R.N.H. was also required to attend a Saturday detention and was initially rejected from the National Honor Society (NHS); however, he was later allowed to reapply and was admitted.
R.N.H.’s parents filed suit on behalf of R.N.H. The parents alleged violations of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and asked the Court to issue a preliminary injunction to expunge R.N.H.’s disciplinary record to remove the Saturday detention and to raise his grade in AP U.S. History from a C-plus to a B.
The parents argued that the Academic Integrity Policy in the handbook was vague and did not specifically prohibit R.N.H.’s use of AI. They also argued that the disciplinary measures imposed were disproportionate, particularly in light of the emerging and evolving nature of AI technology.
The School argued that the policies on academic integrity, including prohibitions on unauthorized technology use, were clearly communicated to the students. R.N.H. knowingly violated these policies by copying and pasting AI-generated content without attribution. The School argued that this was a straightforward case of academic dishonesty and that it acted within its discretion to impose reasonable disciplinary measures that aligned with its policies.
The framework for granting a preliminary injunction requires the Court to consider four factors: (1) likelihood of success on the merits—the plaintiff must show a strong chance of prevailing at trial; (2) irreparable harm—the plaintiff must demonstrate harm that cannot be remedied through damages or later relief; (3) balance of equities—the Court weighs the potential harm to the plaintiff if relief is denied against the harm to the defendant if granted; and (4) public interest—the Court assesses the broader societal impact of granting or denying the injunction.
The Court first analyzed the likelihood of success on the merits of the parents’ due process claims. There are two types of due process: Procedural and Substantive Due Process. Procedural Due Process requires that individuals be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of a property or liberty interest. Substantive Due Process protects against government actions that are so arbitrary and egregious as to “shock the conscience.”
On the Procedural Due Process claim, the Court found that R.N.H. was given ample notice and opportunities to explain his actions. Multiple meetings were held with R.N.H., his parents, and school officials. The process exceeded the minimal requirements established in precedential cases for short-term disciplinary actions in public schools.
On the Substantive Due Process claim, the Court ruled that the School’s actions did not “shock the conscience.” The disciplinary measures were reasonable and proportionate to the violation. The evidence demonstrated that R.N.H. was aware of the rules and knowingly submitted AI-generated content without attribution. There was no evidence that the School officials were hasty in concluding that R.N.H. had cheated. Nor were the consequences the School imposed so heavy-handed as to exceed the School’s discretion in such matters.
As a result, the parents failed to show a strong likelihood of prevailing on their due process claims and did not meet the standard for granting the preliminary injunction.
Nonetheless, the Court considered the remaining factors as follows:
- Irreparable Harm: While the parents argued that R.N.H. suffered irreparable harm, including damage to his reputation and college prospects as he submits college applications, the Court noted that this alone did not justify injunctive relief because it was impossible to know whether any particular mark on a high school transcript would have a material effect on an applicant’s admission.
- Balance of Equities: The Court found that granting an injunction would undermine educators’ authority to enforce academic standards and potentially encourage a wave of legal challenges to routine disciplinary actions, outweighing any harm R.N.H. might suffer.
- Public Interest: The Court emphasized the importance of allowing school officials to enforce academic standards without undue interference from litigation.
As a result, the motion for a preliminary injunction was denied.
Harris v. Adams (D.Mass. Nov. 20, 2024) 2024 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 210951.
Note: While this case involved a public school, and therefore does not apply to private schools, it is one of the first cases dealing with discipline related to student AI use and is illustrative of some of the nuances when considering discipline for improper AI use. Private schools in California must provide fair procedure when disciplining students, which, similar to this case, requires notice of the allegations and an opportunity to respond. In addition, this case highlights the importance of being clear about the parameters for use of AI should a school permit students to use AI for schoolwork.