When right and wrong depend on who is doing it

THE EDITOR, Madam:

There is something increasingly troubling about the way we navigate right and wrong in Jamaican society. It is not necessarily that we have abandoned our understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Rather, we seem to have become selective about when those principles should apply.

Today, right and wrong appear to be determined less by values, facts and established standards and more by who is involved. The same behaviour that attracts condemnation when committed by someone we dislike is defended, excused or conveniently explained away when committed by someone we admire, support or identify with.

A healthy democracy must accommodate disagreement, competing perspectives, and even uncomfortable criticism. The problem is what happens when disagreement gives way to denial, when facts become inconvenient, when people construct alternative realities to protect their preferred personalities and when the truth is treated as something that can be negotiated depending on whose interests are threatened.

Consider the recent public discussion surrounding content creators using artificial intelligence to generate photographs of themselves in The University of the West Indies (UWI) graduation regalia branded with the institution’s coat of arms.

Some have found the images amusing and creative, while others, including actual graduates, have questioned whether the images trivialise an achievement that requires years of discipline, sacrifice and hard work.

The UWI expressed concern about the unauthorised use of its coat of arms, noting that simulated graduation photographs bearing the emblem could be mistaken for official university records.

The issue should not be whether someone likes or dislikes a particular content creator. People are entitled to use technology creatively, and humour has its place in our society. But creativity does not exempt anyone from accountability. If an image uses an institution’s official insignia in a manner that could mislead the public, questions about authenticity, institutional representation and intellectual property are legitimate.

Why should someone who raises those concerns be subjected to ridicule or accused of being bitter, classist or unable to take a joke?

The fact that something attracts thousands of likes does not make it appropriate. Popularity is not a substitute for principle, just as a large following does not confer immunity from criticism.

SHANNICK DAWKINS