Rift ruining Satya Wacana's future<\/p>\n
By Ariel Heryanto<\/p>\n
SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): Indonesia has never seen
\nanything like this before. And the full story has yet to be
\nwritten.<\/p>\n
Thousands of students and faculty members are on a strike that
\nhas now lasted half a year. They are protesting against the
\nleadership of a university.<\/p>\n
This civil crisis is taking place at Satya Wacana Christian
\nUniversity in this small and ancient town. The events that
\nmotivated the strike and the action itself have paralyzed the
\nwhole system of the university. And yet that is only a small part
\nof the story.<\/p>\n
The conflict is mostly internal in nature. It would,
\ntherefore, be unfair to overlook all of the details of the events
\nand make sweeping interpretations. Nonetheless, the strike is
\nreflective of what is happening to Indonesian society, and
\nperhaps to Southeast Asia in the 1990s.<\/p>\n
This decade is ushering in the growth and spread of an
\neducated urban middle class. Not only has the size of the middle
\nclass increased tremendously, a sense of collective identity has
\nemerged, albeit it is far from being monolithic, clear-cut, or
\nsolid.<\/p>\n
The rift at Satya Wacana is a complex one, and it is not
\neasy to pinpoint where it all actually started. But at least one
\naspect is fairly clear. The one major event triggering the public
\nsplit and the strike was the arbitrary dismissal of Dr. Arief
\nBudiman, a senior lecturer for the university's postgraduate
\nprogram. That was one year ago today.<\/p>\n
The dismissal provoked anger on a massive scale among the
\nacademic community at Satya Wacana and far beyond. What enraged
\nthem was not the dismissal itself, but the fact that is was a
\ngross violation of proper procedures. The dismissal itself was
\nonly part of a series of events whose origin dated back as far as
\n10 years ago. The conflict had intensified steadily from June
\n1993 when the university elected a new rector.<\/p>\n
The dismissal had no precedence. This was the first time
\nSatya Wacana had dismissed an employee dishonorably. To make
\nmatters worse, the decision was made without any consultation
\nwith the direct superior of the employee, as stipulated in the
\nuniversity statutes. The university's board made no specific
\nallegations concerning Budiman's wrongdoings. It made only a
\nbrief reference to a statement he made in the media. The media
\nreported that Budiman thought the board regarded him as hostile
\nto members of the University's board and administration. Budiman
\nwas given neither the chance to present a defense, nor any sort
\nof compensation. He simply lost all his earnings and positions
\nless than a week from the moment he was given the letter of
\ndismissal.<\/p>\n
Observers generally view the dismissal as revenge for
\nBudiman's involvement in the widespread university opposition
\nagainst the board's appointment of Dr. John Ihalauw as the new
\nrector in 1993. The board apparently overlooked the fact that
\nBudiman did not lead the opposition as post-dismissal protests
\nattested.<\/p>\n
The crux of the matter was that, unlike many of his
\ncolleagues, Budiman had been a public figure since the 1960s. And
\nhe has long been a darling of the media.<\/p>\n
According to those opposing the appointment, Ihalauw lost in
\nthe election to Dr. Liek Wilardjo. On the other side, the board
\nclaimed to have veto power and the right to suggest alternative
\ncandidates to the minister of education and culture for final
\napproval. In any case, Ihalauw was appointed in a ceremony
\nboycotted by most of the universities deans and the people
\nchairing service units within the university. Since then no
\nuniversity-level assembly (University Senate) has taken place due
\nto lack of a quorum, a result of the same boycott.<\/p>\n
The conflict has since snowballed into the crisis it is
\ntoday. The rector has terminated most of the university's deans
\nand heads of departments in response to the insistent opposition
\nto his holding the post of rector even after Budiman's dismissal,
\nwhen they filed a motion of no confidence in the rector. Those
\nwho cosigned the motion made up 75 percent of the University
\nSenate members from teaching units, 64 percent of all active
\nfaculty members, and over 80 percent of the university's Ph.D.
\nholders.<\/p>\n
About 70 faculty members have received no salaries since
\nAugust 1995. Instead, each of them has received letters
\nthreatening them with dismissal. Over the past 12 months, massive
\ndemonstrations have become a regular sight on the campus in
\nresponse to the dismissal. The last major demonstration occurred
\nin September, when more than 1,000 students attacked the
\nuniversity's main administration building. Security officers
\nbroke up the protest, arresting 19 students, and handing three of
\nthem over to the local prosecutor's office for possible trial in
\nthe near future.<\/p>\n
Last July, the university suffered a defeat in a court case
\nover Budiman's dismissal. Now they are facing no less serious
\nlegal charges from hundreds of parents of students for the
\nuniversity's failure to provide education to their children.
\nOverseas institutions decline to continue cooperation and support
\nof Satya Wacana under the current leadership.<\/p>\n
The Ministry of Education and Culture has opted to wash its
\nhands off the affair. The minister even refused the desperate
\nplea of students and faculty members to act as a mediator.<\/p>\n
One of the many remarkable things about the whole affair is
\nthe vigor and perseverance of those opposing the university
\nleadership. This has involved hundreds of lecturers and thousands
\nof students over an uninterrupted period of two years. At the
\nrisk of losing secure jobs, promotion and much sought after
\nuniversity degrees, these people have fought fiercely for
\nsomething as abstract as \"ethical principles, justice, and due
\nprocedures\".<\/p>\n
This implies exhaustive meetings over the whole period of two-
\nand-a-half years. The struggle took place in many fronts and
\nforms: religious services, negotiation, intimidation through
\nanonymous pamphlets, telephone calls, and letters, litigation in
\ncourts, interrogation by the police and military officers,
\ninterviews with the media and press conferences, hunger strikes
\nand repeated physical violence.<\/p>\n
It is worth emphasizing, nearly all of these people had no
\nprior experience, nor interest, in political activities.
\nSignificantly they called themselves the Pro-Democracy Group, in
\na time when certain officers within the military elite declared
\n\"democracy\" to be politically incorrect, along with \"human
\nrights, environment, or openness\".<\/p>\n
In the 1980s Satya Wacana ranked as one of the top tertiary
\ninstitutions in the nation. Its strength was derived from
\nadministrative viability, as well as a reputation of outstanding
\nindividual professors in the humanities and social sciences. The
\nnotable writer Goenawan Mohamad suggested that individuals like
\nArief Budiman, George Junus Aditjondro, Th. Sumartana, Liek
\nWilardjo, or Nico L.Kana constituted unparalleled prestige and
\nresources for the university.<\/p>\n
Incidentally, all of these individuals belong to the Pro-
\ndemocracy Group.<\/p>\n
Critical statements from these individuals on separate
\noccasions on sensitive issues of political significance often
\nmade the university's leadership nervous.<\/p>\n
Satya Wacana was the first private university to obtain the
\ngovernment's approval to open a postgraduate program in
\ndevelopment studies. The program quickly attracted many foreign
\nscholars and academic institutions to establish joint projects.
\nThis program was also one of the first and the worst victims of
\nthe rector's attack. The fact that many people and important
\ninstitutions considered the university the institutional bastion
\nof the opposition forces undermined the rector's position.<\/p>\n
Satya Wacana's dramatic growth would have been unimaginable
\nwithout taking into account the sustained economic growth in the
\ncountry, or the whole of Southeast Asia, for more than two
\ndecades. Neither can the political volatility within the
\nuniversity be separated from the wave of contemporary
\ndemocratization in the society at large. Both the university's
\ngrowth and its political consequences appeared to be going too
\nfar and too fast for the old university bureaucracy to handle.<\/p>\n
Now, impatient with the seemingly never-ending conflict,
\nmany of the university's best lecturers have fled and have taken
\njobs elsewhere. Others will follow suit, unless the conflict can
\nbe resolved substantially and soon. That seems unlikely.<\/p>\n
One wonders what these contemporary pro-democracy
\nprofessionals will find in their new working atmospheres. Also it
\nseems appropriate to ask just how unique the volatile situation
\nat Satya Wacana really is, or whether it has correlations to the
\natmosphere existing in the nation's major cities.<\/p>\n
The writer was, until recently, a lecturer for the post-
\ngraduate program at the Satya Wacana Christian University.<\/p>\n
Window A: The rift at Satya Wacana is a complex one, and it is not
\neasy to pinpoint where it starts.<\/p>\n
Window B: Impatient with the seemingly never-ending conflict,
\nmany of the university best lecturers have fled and worked
\nelsewhere.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/rift-ruining-satya-wacanas-future-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}