The reaction to the recently proposed school tour by Grace Hamilton, the dancehall artiste popularly known as Spice, sparked intense debate among the Jamaican populace. Spice’s critics have argued that her presence as a motivational speaker in high schools across the island is inappropriate, citing concerns about what they see as her unwholesome image and its potential negative impact on impressionable students.

While legitimate concerns have been raised regarding Spice’s suitability for the role of a motivational speaker, much of what has been said in opposition to the proposed tour seems to be more rooted in personal biases and self-righteous concerns than in an objective assessment of her message to the schools and its potential benefits.

One can understand that parents would have concerns about having someone who peddles in adult content speaking to their children on sensitive issues. One can also appreciate the fact that the Church has a prophetic mission to speak out against what it deems to be morally repulsive. Yet panic is usually not a prelude to a meaningful solution.

Opponents of the school tour seem to fall largely into two broad categories — those who argue that it will do harm to Spice’s brand (she should “stick to her core”) and those who believe it is inappropriate for students to be exposed to her risqué image (she should “stay in her lane”).

However, both arguments fail to consider a fundamental fact: Most of our children already know who Spice is and are familiar with her catalogue, even though they should not have been exposed to it.

Regardless of what we might think of her, Spice is an extremely influential figure. Her voice carries weight among young people. If that influence can be harnessed for positive endeavours then we should take advantage of it.

Those attacking Spice’s presence in schools must ask themselves whether they believe that it should only be perfect people who are allowed to promote positive values in our society? Should Spice go down in sackcloth and ashes before she is considered worthy to speak to high school students about issues which affect them?

The critics fail to distinguish between Grace Hamilton, the mother, and Spice, the performer. Spice is a stage persona, much like an actor in a film. We usually do not hold actors personally responsible for the roles they play in a movie, yet we demand that Spice be judged solely on her provocative performances at events which should have attracted an adult rating. When she stepped into the schools on her recent tour, Spice was not performing. She came to speak as Grace Hamilton. She was fully covered and well-spoken.

I would venture to say that, regarding the issue of role playing, Spice might be quite similar to some in the clergy who have criticised her. Like some of these clerics, Spice/ Grace Hamilton might be playing one role in private and another in public. Spice might be raunchy in her public performance but might be more demure in her private space. The problem with some of her detractors is that they fail to admit that they, too, are engaged in role playing. They try to promote the fiction that the person we see in the pulpit is the same individual we experience in private. Some of these self-righteous individuals are are beasts in private.

Some children are smart enough to see through the hypocrisy of these charlatans and that is why supposedly questionable characters such as Spice have more credibility among our youth than some of our moral leaders. Neither Grace Hamilton nor her alter ego Spice is perfect; nor are her critics.

I saw clips of Spice’s appearance during the tour at her alma mater, St Catherine High School, which boasts Prime Minister Andrew Holness among its distinguished alumni. She did not put on a show; she delivered a message.

Let me state categorically that Spice is a savvy marketer. It is possible that Spice might very well have welcomed this controversy. She has courted controversy before to gain attention and promote her brand, and this time might well have been no different.

Those who genuinely believe that it is in their interest to curtail Spice’s influence might have unwittingly supported her marketing ploy and helped her to amplify her visibility and popularity. Yet the fact that this might have been a marketing effort for Spice’s brand does not in any way diminish the benefits which could have been derived from this exercise. Dismissing her entirely, rather than acknowledging the value she could bring through her tour, is short-sighted.

The Church and her other critics could have taken a more nuanced approach. Instead of outright condemnation, they could have acknowledged concerns about Spice’s artistic catalogue while supporting her attempt to inspire young people. That approach would have lent credibility to their moral arguments while fostering constructive dialogue. It would have demonstrated that we can find solutions through empathy and collaboration. These are valuable lessons for our children, who often believe that confrontation and violence are the only means for us to resolve our issues.

Unfortunately, the response from some in the religious sector has mirrored the worst aspects of cancel culture. It speaks to our incapacity to compromise, which is wreaking havoc on modern civilisation. The self-righteous posture of some might have resulted in a lost opportunity for us.

As Professor Carolyn Cooper astutely pointed out, some of the negative reactions toward Spice stem from linguistic biases. Spice’s messages, delivered in patois, are perhaps scrutinised more harshly than if they were presented in Standard English. However, it is important for us to note that patois can make adult themes more accessible to Jamaican children, which can cause real concerns for parents and educators alike.

Professor Cooper’s textual analysis of the controversial Spice song at the centre of this debate suggests that it is not promoting promiscuous behaviour, but is instead discouraging it. Yet many refuse to entertain this perspective, preferring instead to react emotionally rather than rationally.

One of the greatest dangers in society is the belief that any one group or individual has a monopoly on morality. I subscribe to Christian values, but I do not embrace a theocratic vision of Jamaica. I would not want to live under the rigid moral codes of the mullahs in Iran or the Taliban in Afghanistan. We must preserve the right to critique without dictating how others should live, except when what they are doing infringes on our fundamental rights.

Children learn not just from what we say but from how we act. If we preach tolerance, reasoned debate, and respect, we must reflect them in our actions. Dismissing Spice, wholesale, rather than engaging with her message, sends the wrong signal.

Instead of rejecting her outright, we should have recognised the potential for positive influence and seize the opportunity for meaningful engagement.

If we are to judge Spice, let it be fairly — not through the lens of prejudice, but through a genuine examination of her actions and intentions and their consequences.

clydepmckenzie@yahoo.co.uk