The Endangering Risks of University Liberalization
The government needs to review the autonomy of universities. Granting autonomy is not the same as liberalization.
A chancellor of a state university and several of his subordinates were recently arrested by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) for bribery in the jalur mandiri (independently managed) student admissions.
Discourses have since spread with suspicions that bribery practices, apart from the one having been uncovered in a university, have become an open secret among several universities.
While sparking speculations about irregularities being rife in other forms of ludicrous practices at universities, the news about the chancellor's arrest has drawn concern and criticism over academic morality. Among the critics are Satryo Soemantri Brodjonegoro, who raised the issue in his article titled “Perguruan Tinggi Sebagai Kekuatan Moral” (universities as moral guardians) (Kompas, 24/8/2022) and Saifur Rohman in “Profesor Doktor Koruptor” (professor doctor and corruptor) (Kompas, 26/8/2022).
In his article, Brodjonegoro pointed out the urgency for "moral movement to make universities respected and moral-guarding institutions". Saifur Rohman criticized university orientations for being "lavishly motivated by material interests." Such orientations do not align with the universities’ role as “guardians of public morality.”
Also read:
> Improving the University’s Self-Managed Admissions Process
The bribery case certainly deserves condemnation as well as appeal for universities to be more moral-vigilant. However, it is not enough because the calls are restrictedly addressed to academics either as individuals or part of institutions, not the broad system that governs them. We cannot hope much for the criticism and appeal to be able to change the situation in its entirety. The appealing voice for moral vigilance may sound too frightening to bypass but will be too faintly distant to be listened to as long as there is no improved governing structural system.
What the chancellor and his subordinates have done is unquestionably ludicrous. There is no excuse whatsoever to condone their perpetration. However, condemnation may not be as frightening as a curse to expel deep-rooted evil. Therefore, we need to look at the case through the lens of a broad perspective so that we are able to find the triggering factors to such grim behaviors at universities.
Autonomy = liberalization
Entering the reformation era, Indonesia was faced with the sweeping waves of democratization in all fields. One of the demanding reformation agendas was that greater autonomy be granted to several institutions, including education. This led to the legislation of Law No. 20/2003 concerning the National Education System (UU Sisdiknas).
Article 50, Paragraph (6) of the law stipulates that universities determine the policy regarding autonomy to manage education on their own. The granted autonomy is a blessing of the reform. Universities indeed deserve autonomy in their decision-making, especially those related to learning programs, scientific development and research.
However, this blessing appears to have carried backfiring elements, given the fact that the law not only gives mandate on academic autonomy, but also allows funding autonomy. In Article 53, Paragraphs (1) and (3), the law states that educational institutions, founded either by the government or private entities, take the form of legal entities that have the authority to manage funds independently.
Also read:
> Autonomy Deficit and Educational Etatism
The authority to manage funds independently means universities are allowed to mobilize fund-raising programs for academic operations. This is the beginning of the many problems that have sprung up in universities, because the granted autonomy is interpreted as liberalization, not simply in terms of academic programs, but also in financial procurement.
University liberalization is stipulated in Law No. 9/2009 on educational legal entities (UU BHP). The BHP Law was formulated on the basis of Article 53 of the National Education System Law. However, being found contrary to the 1945 Constitution, the BHP Law was immediately annulled by the Constitutional Court (MK) only a few months after it was ratified.
However, Article 51 of the National Education System Law as the legal umbrella of the BHP Law was not rescinded altogether. As a result, the spirit of liberalization created by the annulled BHP Law was reborn in the form of new laws, such as Law No. 12/2012 on Higher Education (UU Dikti).
Universities indeed deserve autonomy in their decision-making, especially those related to learning programs, scientific development and research.
Article 64, Paragraph (1) of the Higher Education Law states that university autonomy applies to academic and non-academic fields. Autonomy in non-academic fields includes, among others, public fundraising (Article 64, Paragraph 3).
The funding autonomy is implemented in the transformation of a state university into the status as a public service agency (BLU) or legal entity (BH) as mandated in Article 65, Paragraph 1. Specifically for legal entity universities, the Higher Education Law also gives the authority to establish a business entity and develop an endowment fund (Article 65, Paragraph 3).
The provisions on fundraising, packaged in the university autonomy policy embellished with the narratives of educational reform, have come about as an attempt to slowly free the government from its financial responsibilities in higher education. With state universities being legal entities (BH status), the government hopes that state universities will no longer depend on the government for the brunt of funding. They are encouraged to look for funding sources themselves, either through donations from students or business engagements.
The change in the status of a state university into a legal entity that can establish a business entity is an accession of the university to the market mechanism. In other words, a university is both an education provider and market actor, with the transaction commodity of course being education. That is why autonomy on higher education, which is understood as higher education liberalization, has ominously led to the commercialization of education. This is where the door is widely open for bribery and all kinds of delinquent practices.
For more concerns, the regulation that liberalizes universities under the policy of educational autonomy has reappeared in the provisional drafts of the 2022 National Education System Bill (for example, Articles 39 and 41). If this bill is passed into law, deceitful practices may continue to linger at universities.
Pseudo academic autonomy
University liberalization as mandated by the 2003 National Education System Law or the 2012 Higher Education Law has pushed universities into what Sheila Slaughter and Larry L. Leslie calls "academic capitalism" (1997).
Universities trapped in academic capitalism will be forced to compete in raising funds from outside that bind them to the market. The fund can be procured in the form of research grants or cooperation contracts with business entities. The consequence is that universities may bow to market demands in their research projects.
Also read:
> Dilemma of Academic Capitalism
> Higher Education and Inequality
At that point, the academic autonomy granted to universities will only be pseudo-autonomy, because universities may feel obliged to comply with market demands in the orientation of their research priorities. In the end, academics are not really liberated in their own research projects.
Thus, Articles 8 and 9 of the 2012 Higher Education Law, which promises academic freedom and more room for scientific achievements and research autonomy, will only end up as hollow provisions. It is evidently attributable to the fact that academic autonomy liberates universities only to cede it to market demands. In the end, it is the market that has the final say on what is academically beneficial.
Therefore, the government needs to review the autonomy of universities. Granting autonomy is not the same as liberalization. Giving full autonomy to universities, including in financing affairs while opening up opportunities for fraudulent practices, also means leaving universities in the grip of capitalists. At that point, aspirations over academic autonomy will be trapped in the realm of dreams.
Siti Murtiningsih
Siti Murtiningsih, Dean of Philosophy School at Gadjah Mada University (UGM) and a Member of the Yogyakarta Education Council
This article was translated by Musthofid.
