Decolonising Education
The academic world was recently shaken by the death of Jason Arday, 41, the youngest black professor at the University of Cambridge. His career trajectory was dramatic in the history of British academia. In an instant, fame turned into a tragic path with accusations of plagiarism by Nathan Cofnas, an American researcher dismissed from the University of Cambridge for writings deemed racist, including his claim that in a true meritocratic system, black people would not succeed in occupying all important positions except in sports and entertainment. In short, after his resignation from the University of Cambridge, on 14 August 2026, Arday was found lifeless in South London.
The incident left many questions and debates. Three main issues colour public discourse and policy in the 21st century: the ideological war between the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) movement and the demand to uphold meritocracy, representation in the socio-political arena, and social justice. Arday’s appointment as a professor at the University of Cambridge was seen as a symbol of DEI because, according to Financial Times records, as of 2025 only 0.4% of professors at the University of Cambridge were black. The demand for multiculturalism and diversity came to the fore in the politics of representation that crystallised in the United States in the 1990s-2000s through affirmative action policies, but then sharpened in the last decade in identity politics movements such as woke and Black Lives Matter (BLM).
The divide in the political arena and social relations also spread to Europe and the United Kingdom. The conservative ideology championed by the current Trump administration corners the DEI movement through the discourse of meritocracy. An academic colleague at a major university in the United States withdrew his manuscript from a journal focused on DEI due to the threat of research budget cuts at his university and even termination of his employment contract. Regardless of the regime, the issue of social justice continues to haunt even developed countries.
LESSONS FOR INDONESIA
Eighty-one years after independence from the colonial government, Indonesia still has to fight for quality education for all. According to the World Bank’s Indonesia Learning Poverty record (2024), 53% of Indonesian children aged 10 are not yet proficient in reading. The 2022 PISA results also show that 43% of 15-year-old students are in the lowest socioeconomic quintile with an average mathematics score of only 354, while students in the highest socioeconomic quintile score 34 points higher (but that score is still lower than Vietnamese students in the lowest socioeconomic quintile).
Sari and Tiwari (2024) constructed a human capital index (HCI) across 34 provinces and 514 districts using a methodology consistent with the World Bank’s HCI measurement. The HCI for the Special Region of Yogyakarta is 0.70 (the highest) and Papua is 0.47 (the lowest). Districts with the lowest HCI, around 0.30, are concentrated in Papua and several eastern regions of Indonesia. The index shows not only inter-provincial disparities but also inter-district disparities within a single province.
The question for Indonesia: how can we claim to have an equitable education system when opportunities to develop competencies are highly uneven geographically?
Learning from political tensions in other countries, there are three important lessons for Indonesia in advancing education. First, the polarisation of DEI versus meritocracy in the United States and the United Kingdom must be avoided. Adopting the DEI formulation wholesale is not a solution for Indonesia.
Conversely, consistently enforcing meritocracy is not yet the right option for addressing the uneven quality of education. Correcting historical social injustice and maintaining standards of academic integrity and excellence are two goals that must not cancel each other out. Appointing a high-ranking official or promoting a champion student from an ethnic group deemed lagging in various measurements is often done to demonstrate representation and becomes a shortcut for DEI symbolisation as a consolation to appease the anger of underdeveloped regions.
Indonesia must move from diversity of representation towards talent cultivation. From the attitude of ‘we need more students from group X’ towards ‘what hinders prospective students from group X and how can we facilitate them to overcome those barriers?’.
Second, Indonesia should pursue equality of opportunity, not equality of formal qualifications. In an equitable education paradigm, the commitment to improving education quality should not be transformed into a pitying attitude of ‘because this child comes from a less fortunate region/family, we should expect lower results’. A more serious commitment requires long-term fidelity: ‘because this child has had fewer educational opportunities, we must provide additional opportunities while still maintaining learning standards’.
Third, build a quality assurance system within an equitable education framework. Improving education quality is a long road that requires fidelity and steadfast adherence to the principle of integrity. The education evaluation system includes assessment and accreditation that examine the input flow (recruitment of disadvantaged students), process (mentoring and academic support), output (retention and graduation), outcome (learning achievement), and impact (social mobility). Each point in that flow requires authentic evidence. This transforms DEI/equity from an ideological commitment into an evidence-based quality improvement system.
Indonesia has enjoyed 81 years of independence from colonialism. The question is whether Indonesian children have been prepared to use that independence.