On Friday, April 11, I woke up to a post on Rowan University’s Instagram of two AI-generated action figures of our mascot Whoo RU, and our president Ali Houshmand.

The caption encouraged people to create their own action figures using ChatGPT, with an exact template on what they should do.

Once I started to scroll through my Instagram, I saw many other brands, public figures, and friends using AI to create a model of an action figure that depicts themselves.

I was simply shocked that a university would openly encourage the use of ChatGPT—all while enforcing strict policies that frame any academic use of AI as misconduct, leaving us as students with little to no clarity and a lot of fear about where the lines are actually drawn.

So my first question was: Why is AI “bad” when used academically but “fun” for marketing?

As I continued to look through the comments on the post, people were voicing my thoughts, advocating for the art students, speaking out against the use of AI, and calling out the university.

Art students here invest hours into their craft. Every time I walk into Westby, the art gallery, or even Business with Creatives 230, I see or hear some sort of beautiful art being created, and I wonder…why isn’t this being pushed or promoted more?

AI could never recreate the real art that is seen every day by the students at our school. So why is the university acting on an AI-generated trend instead of posting the different monthly exhibitions at the art gallery, or the beautiful StARTup gallery at the Business Hall?

This just shows that time and time again, art has to prove itself worthy of its value. Posting something like this is a dismissal of the insane hours of skill, blood, sweat, and tears put in by the art students of our school.

So at a university where students pay thousands and thousands of dollars a year for an art program, being ignored for the sake of a trend is absolutely ridiculous.

It is also completely mind-boggling to me that the university would run a creative campaign while actively ignoring the creativity of it all. There is nothing creative about a prompt that you can type into a machine.

It’s almost like hosting a live performance where a DJ just stands there and plays from a Spotify playlist. There is absolutely nothing live about that.

AI doesn’t replace art—it erases its value when institutions start prioritizing it over the real, human work being created right on campus. When Rowan promotes an AI-generated figure instead of showcasing the time-consuming work of its students, it sends a clear message: fast, cheap, and trendy matters more than talent, process, or passion.

That’s not innovation–that’s dismissal.

Students pour thousands of dollars and countless hours into their creative education. So if the university can’t even be bothered to amplify student work in its public campaigns, then what exactly are we paying for?

So my question to Rowan University and President Houshmand is: Is this school going to continue to misuse artificial intelligence, or will they finally start to respect the many art students who put their heart and soul into everything they do for little to no reward?