Rebekah Hanley
Clinical Professor
School of Law
“In January 2023, I was concerned that ChatGPT highlighted possible ambiguities in our university and course policies. Specifically, I feared that curious, ambitious, conscientious students might read those policies and decide, in good faith, that the policies permitted certain uses of ChatGPT, but that their instructors or university administrators might reach the opposite conclusion. My concerns inspired this assignment, which offered students an opportunity to learn about the emerging technology while developing their written advocacy skills.”
More generally, Professor Hanley sees work with AI tools as important to law students’ career readiness.
“The legal profession is embracing generative AI, which offers lawyers the opportunity to complete more work, faster, and at a lower cost. Once students develop the foundational skills necessary to effectively use generative AI—to be able to engineer useful prompts and then critically evaluate and improve upon the output—we should invite students to experiment with the tools. That educational exposure and experience will benefit the students, their future clients, the legal profession, and, perhaps, the community at large.”
Teaching Idea
First-year law students transition from predictive to persuasive legal writing by preparing a written legal argument, organized using a common law school paradigm (CREAC: Conclusion, Rule, Explanation, Application, Conclusion). Each argument analyzes whether a hypothetical student’s use of generative AI violated college and course policies. Half the students argue that the student’s reliance on generative AI constituted academic misconduct; the other half argue that the student’s use of generative AI was consistent with the applicable policies.
Assignment Details
Instructions
Using rule-based reasoning, write a persuasive CREAC as indicated below. Use only the materials included or referenced in this handout; do no factual or legal research. Write a maximum of one page using double-spaced, Times New Roman, 12-point font, with one-inch Margins.
Professor’s representatives, arguing that Student A engaged in academic misconduct [names redacted].
Student A’s representative, arguing that Student A did not engage in academic misconduct [names redacted].
Facts
Student A has admitted that, suffering from writer’s block, she used ChatGPT to generate a draft of a graded story for a college creative writing course. The student read that draft, put it aside, then typed a story that incorporated aspects of the characters, setting, and plot used in the computer-generated draft. She submitted her version. She did not cite ChatGPT.
Student A’s professor has accused her of academic misconduct. Student A has taken the position that her actions violate neither the College’s code of conduct nor the professor’s course policy.
Excerpt from College’s Student Conduct Code
Prohibited Conduct:
- Academic Misconduct
- Cheating: Unauthorized collaboration, accessing, or using of unauthorized materials, information, tools, or study aids.
- Plagiarism: Presenting another’s material as one’s own, including using another’s words or ideas, in whole or in part, without giving appropriate credit.
Excerpt from Professor’s Syllabus
Academic Integrity, Plagiarism, & Collaboration
As a student, you are expected to demonstrate academic integrity. You are prohibited from committing or attempting to commit any act that constitutes academic misconduct. Plagiarism is a form of academic misconduct. Plagiarism can be intentional or unintentional. Further, plagiarism can be verbatim or mosaic. Verbatim plagiarism means the wording is identical. Mosaic plagiarism can include borrowing ideas from another without proper attribution, even though the words vary. Both are prohibited.
This policy ensures that all students demonstrate through their own writing that they have achieved the learning outcomes for this course.
Students must submit their own written work product. Students are encouraged to discuss ideas relating to their writing projects with their professor, the teaching assistants assigned to the course, and any peer enrolled in the course this term. Students should seek professor approval before conferring with other people about their ideas for graded writing projects.
If any questions arise about whether an action is permitted by the policy, please contact your professor immediately.
A few brief, recent publications about ChatGPT
- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/technology/chatgpt-ai-twitter.html
- https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/28/plagiarism-and-chatgpt/
- https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/29/a-guest-post-on-plagiarism-and-chatgpt/
- https://blog.scanmyessay.com/2022/12/20/discussing-plagiarism-with-chatgpt/
- https://www.npr.org/2023/01/09/1147549845/gptzero-ai-chatgpt-edward-tian-plagiarism
- https://nypost.com/2022/12/26/students-using-chatgpt-to-cheat-professor-warns/