Massachusetts
Parents of high school student disciplined for using AI sue school district
BOSTON (AP) — The parents of a high school senior in Massachusetts argued in federal court in Boston on Tuesday that their son was unfairly punished for using artificial intelligence while researching a history project, harming his prospects for acceptance to an elite college.
Lawyers for the couple said the lawsuit points to larger unaddressed questions about the role of AI in schools. A federal judge did not immediately issue a ruling Tuesday. The parents initially filed the case in state court, but it was bumped up to federal court by the defendants, according to a lawyer for the parents.
In one of his honors courses, Dale and Jennifer Harris said their son was paired with another student and chose to write a paper about basketball player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as part of an assignment about a famous person also known for their civil rights activities.
At the time, the student’s teacher, Susan Petrie, did not prohibit the use of AI for preparation and research for the project, according to the lawsuit.
Despite that, when Petrie discovered the students’ use of AI as part of their research, the Harrises said their son was given a low grade and required to attend a Saturday detention session, which kept him out of the National Honor Society and harmed his college prospects.
The chair of the Hingham School Committee, Nancy Correnti, which was also named in the lawsuit, said in an email that “out of respect for the student’s privacy and due to the ongoing legal proceedings, we are unable to provide any public comment on this matter at this time.”
“The case is now with the court,” Peter Farrell, a lawyer representing the parents said after the hearing. “We are going to let the court process play out.”
In a court filing, school officials defended their actions, saying the lawsuit isn’t about more serious disciplinary actions, like expulsion or even suspension.
He “received relatively lenient and measured discipline for a serious infraction, unauthorized use of Artificial Intelligence on a project and, equally important, failing to cite to his use of AI. In short, he cheated himself and other students, and he plagiarized,” the defendants said in the filing.
Petrie discovered the use of AI as she conducted spot checks on the students’ work, relying in part on a website designed to help flag copy generated by AI, which she found in some of the endnotes, according to the lawsuit.
The paper was never completed after the teacher discovered its use of AI. The high schooler received a zero and was allowed to start again. He was given a D on the second effort.
The lawsuit, which says the use of AI was not specifically prohibited by the school, is asking that the student’s grade in Social Studies be restored to a B. It also asks the court to expunge any transcript of discipline.
The suit alleges that the actions of the teacher “violated their minor son’s civil rights, right to equal education opportunity by denying him procedural and substantive due process.” The colleges the student was interested in attending, including Stanford University, don’t consider applicants with histories of disciplinary infractions, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit also argued that the school’s student handbook did not include policies related to AI.
The suit asks the court to block the defendants from referring to the use of artificial intelligence as cheating. It also asks the court to order school officials from continuing to bar the student from being inducted into the National Honor Society.
Farrell said content generated by AI isn’t the product of another human and can’t be classified as plagiarism.
“Instead, it represents an evolving collaboration between human creativity and machine assistance, a relationship that society must grapple with as AI continues to integrate into educational environments,” he said in a statement.
“There is currently much debate surrounding the proper role of AI in public schools, and unfortunately, this student has been caught in the middle of this transition,” Farrell added.
Louisiana
Counselors sue to use the word ‘psychological’ in the name of their business
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Two owners of a counseling service in Louisiana have filed a federal lawsuit accusing the state of unconstitutionally stopping them from using the word “psychological” in their business name.
One of the plaintiffs is a licensed counselor and the other is a licensed clinical social worker. Both have training in psychology, and until early this year they operated a business called the Psychological Wellness Institute.
Julie Alleman and Juliet Catrett own the business now called the P. Wellness Institute in Baton Rouge. According to their lawsuit, the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists told them using “psychological” in the name violated state law.
The plaintiffs say the state law is overly broad and puts them at risk of misdemeanor prosecution for using the word psychological in the business name or providing services that “constitute the practice of psychiatry” under the law.
Alleman is a licensed professional counselor, a licensed marriage and family therapist and a licensed addiction counselor, while Catrett is a licensed clinical social worker, according to the lawsuit.
Both have studied psychology and use its principles in their work, the suit says. But because of the law, the two say they no longer use the word “psychological” in describing their work to clients or potential clients.
“Alleman and Catrett would like to explain to their clients, when appropriate, that, although they are not licensed psychologists, they have studied psychological principles, methods, and procedures, and apply them in their treatment to help clients modify their behavior and improve their lives,” the lawsuit says.
The suit seeks a court order declaring that Alleman’s and Catrett’s constitutional free speech rights are being violated and that the law is overly broad. It also seeks an order blocking enforcement of the law against them by the board or the Baton Rouge district attorney.
Two advocacy groups, the Center for Individual Rights and the Pelican Institute are providing court representation for Alleman and Catrett.
Parents of high school student disciplined for using AI sue school district
BOSTON (AP) — The parents of a high school senior in Massachusetts argued in federal court in Boston on Tuesday that their son was unfairly punished for using artificial intelligence while researching a history project, harming his prospects for acceptance to an elite college.
Lawyers for the couple said the lawsuit points to larger unaddressed questions about the role of AI in schools. A federal judge did not immediately issue a ruling Tuesday. The parents initially filed the case in state court, but it was bumped up to federal court by the defendants, according to a lawyer for the parents.
In one of his honors courses, Dale and Jennifer Harris said their son was paired with another student and chose to write a paper about basketball player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as part of an assignment about a famous person also known for their civil rights activities.
At the time, the student’s teacher, Susan Petrie, did not prohibit the use of AI for preparation and research for the project, according to the lawsuit.
Despite that, when Petrie discovered the students’ use of AI as part of their research, the Harrises said their son was given a low grade and required to attend a Saturday detention session, which kept him out of the National Honor Society and harmed his college prospects.
The chair of the Hingham School Committee, Nancy Correnti, which was also named in the lawsuit, said in an email that “out of respect for the student’s privacy and due to the ongoing legal proceedings, we are unable to provide any public comment on this matter at this time.”
“The case is now with the court,” Peter Farrell, a lawyer representing the parents said after the hearing. “We are going to let the court process play out.”
In a court filing, school officials defended their actions, saying the lawsuit isn’t about more serious disciplinary actions, like expulsion or even suspension.
He “received relatively lenient and measured discipline for a serious infraction, unauthorized use of Artificial Intelligence on a project and, equally important, failing to cite to his use of AI. In short, he cheated himself and other students, and he plagiarized,” the defendants said in the filing.
Petrie discovered the use of AI as she conducted spot checks on the students’ work, relying in part on a website designed to help flag copy generated by AI, which she found in some of the endnotes, according to the lawsuit.
The paper was never completed after the teacher discovered its use of AI. The high schooler received a zero and was allowed to start again. He was given a D on the second effort.
The lawsuit, which says the use of AI was not specifically prohibited by the school, is asking that the student’s grade in Social Studies be restored to a B. It also asks the court to expunge any transcript of discipline.
The suit alleges that the actions of the teacher “violated their minor son’s civil rights, right to equal education opportunity by denying him procedural and substantive due process.” The colleges the student was interested in attending, including Stanford University, don’t consider applicants with histories of disciplinary infractions, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit also argued that the school’s student handbook did not include policies related to AI.
The suit asks the court to block the defendants from referring to the use of artificial intelligence as cheating. It also asks the court to order school officials from continuing to bar the student from being inducted into the National Honor Society.
Farrell said content generated by AI isn’t the product of another human and can’t be classified as plagiarism.
“Instead, it represents an evolving collaboration between human creativity and machine assistance, a relationship that society must grapple with as AI continues to integrate into educational environments,” he said in a statement.
“There is currently much debate surrounding the proper role of AI in public schools, and unfortunately, this student has been caught in the middle of this transition,” Farrell added.
Louisiana
Counselors sue to use the word ‘psychological’ in the name of their business
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Two owners of a counseling service in Louisiana have filed a federal lawsuit accusing the state of unconstitutionally stopping them from using the word “psychological” in their business name.
One of the plaintiffs is a licensed counselor and the other is a licensed clinical social worker. Both have training in psychology, and until early this year they operated a business called the Psychological Wellness Institute.
Julie Alleman and Juliet Catrett own the business now called the P. Wellness Institute in Baton Rouge. According to their lawsuit, the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists told them using “psychological” in the name violated state law.
The plaintiffs say the state law is overly broad and puts them at risk of misdemeanor prosecution for using the word psychological in the business name or providing services that “constitute the practice of psychiatry” under the law.
Alleman is a licensed professional counselor, a licensed marriage and family therapist and a licensed addiction counselor, while Catrett is a licensed clinical social worker, according to the lawsuit.
Both have studied psychology and use its principles in their work, the suit says. But because of the law, the two say they no longer use the word “psychological” in describing their work to clients or potential clients.
“Alleman and Catrett would like to explain to their clients, when appropriate, that, although they are not licensed psychologists, they have studied psychological principles, methods, and procedures, and apply them in their treatment to help clients modify their behavior and improve their lives,” the lawsuit says.
The suit seeks a court order declaring that Alleman’s and Catrett’s constitutional free speech rights are being violated and that the law is overly broad. It also seeks an order blocking enforcement of the law against them by the board or the Baton Rouge district attorney.
Two advocacy groups, the Center for Individual Rights and the Pelican Institute are providing court representation for Alleman and Catrett.
