A tiny victory in the battle against AI-generated stupidity

Quick commentary on the student who plagiarized using AI and then sued his school

You may remember hearing a few weeks ago about a dumb lawsuit tangentially related to AI in education? The backstory is here, but basically, a high school student in Massachusetts plagiarized using AI, got caught, and then sued his school district in federal court, claiming he had no idea what he did was wrong and that his punishment—ultimately knocking his history grade from a B to a C—violated his constitutional rights.

Yes, you read that right.

On Wednesday, the federal magistrate judge overseeing the case emphatically denied the students’ motion for preliminary injunction, which I suspect will end the case entirely.¹ It’s a very well reasoned decision, and makes me proud both of the American judiciary and public educators.

As I predicted, the core issue was never really about the whiz-bang technology of AI and its inner mysteries—it's about plagiarism and process. The judge's decision explains at length and in detail how the school district had academic integrity policies in place, including guidance on AI, as well as a fair process for resolving any issues arising under them. Everyone involved on the school district side of things—the superintendent, the teachers, everyone—followed these rules and imposed an appropriate (and frankly light) sanction. Few will see the diligent work of thoughtful educators at Hingham Public Schools that took place here, but I do—and I'm hoping they felt vindicated when this decision came out. They should.

Previously, I was quoted as saying all this was helicopter parenting run amok, but it turns out the student's parents, or at least his mom, didn't have a problem with the punishment initially. So now I think it's more helicopter lawyering run amok. Peter S. Farrell, doing his best Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer impression, saw a case he could turn into some free publicity (the only thing he was right about) and went for it. "This new technology frightened and confused my client, your honor—is AI made up of tiny demons typing on a thousand typewriters, gifting him the words for his report on Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? I don't know, I'm just a caveman."² That’s bad enough, but for some inexplicable reason the Center for Reinventing Public Education felt the need to jump in on the plaintiffs’ side, arguing that in the absence of extensive state policies regarding AI usage in schools, who is to say what's right from wrong?

Well, Judge Levenson is, and he was having none of that shit. Again, school officials and teachers had made it abundantly clear that plagiarism was wrong, including through the use of AI, and the student himself acknowledged he understood this prior to turning into his assignment. As for the claim that the nature of "AI authorship" is some baffling new reality we're confronting, the judge reacted with a giant yawn—and pleasing nod to the history of the humanities:

Since long before the advent of AI, and even before the advent of the printing press, there have been plenty of works whose origins are sufficiently obscure as to raise serious doubts about whether they can be considered the work of any “author” at all, or whether they simply reflect a syntheses of multiple strands of text and information that have been merged, by processes only partially knowable, into individual “works.” The Bible, Beowolf, and the works of “Homer” come to mind. The Handbook definition of plagiarism seems adequate to alert students that they may not copy such works without attribution and pass them off as their own. 

I mean, of course. The issue here was never about the role of AI in education, it was always about the human beings involved in the education process understanding what education is for, and behaving ethically in pursuit of knowledge—or not. This kid made a mistake, as kids will do, but it's hardly life ending. In fact, based on other facts in the record, he appears to have a bright future. Hopefully he learns from this.  

But as for Peter S. Farrell, Esq. and CRPE? They should seek out Plato's cave and find the ideal form for "embarrassment." Or just find a mirror.  

1. For the legally curious, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction since the student is in the process of applying to universities right now. They’ve lost on that, and given the length of the legal process—as well as the thorough smackdown from the judge—there’s little reason for them to pursue this case further. Then again, it never should have been filed in the first place.

2. This quote is a parody, of course—adding this footnote to stave off future litigation arising from this essay.