Imagine being silenced for simply wanting to discuss history. That's exactly what happened to an Indonesian student who dared to question a controversial national hero designation. This is a story about academic freedom, political sensitivities, and the lingering shadows of a powerful past.
Damar Setyaji Pamungkas, a student at Jakarta's 17 Agustus 1945 University (UTA 45), found himself suspended for an entire semester. His 'crime'? Organizing a campus discussion that challenged the government's decision to bestow the title of national hero upon former President Soeharto. This decision by President Prabowo to honor Soeharto alongside other figures, including murdered labor activist Marsinah, has ignited fierce debate across Indonesia.
Damar, who chairs the Indonesian Student League for Democracy (LMID) Jakarta Raya, planned the discussion, provocatively titled "Soeharto is No Hero: Challenging Fadli Zon, 1,000 Political Sins of Soeharto," for November 10th.
But here's where it gets controversial...
According to a decree issued by Dean Bobby Reza, Damar's suspension stems from his alleged failure to comply with faculty instructions to refrain from non-academic activities and for supposedly mobilizing students for "practical politics" on campus. The decree effectively bars Damar from attending lectures, participating in student organizations, and engaging in any other university activities until the end of the 2025/2026 semester. This raises the question: what constitutes “practical politics” versus legitimate academic inquiry?
The university administration claims Damar failed to obtain the necessary permission for the event, characterizing the discussion as a politically charged activity. They point to regulations, including those from the Ministry of Higher Education, that prohibit campuses from engaging in "practical politics." Dean Bobby stated that while academic platforms are encouraged, political ones require advance permission and evaluation. He claims the university only learned of the discussion on the day of the event.
LMID Secretary-General Tegar Afwiansyah paints a different picture. He argues that Damar was sanctioned for exercising his right to academic freedom by questioning a decision to honor a figure allegedly responsible for significant human rights violations, corruption, and political repression. And this is the part most people miss...
Tegar claims that Damar was summoned without an official letter, at the direct request of the university rectorate, and explicitly told the discussion couldn't be held. He further alleges the university actively blocked students from attending, deploying security officers, locking down the cafeteria where the discussion was planned, and even displaying a banner threatening suspension or expulsion for engaging in "practical politics."
Damar, according to Tegar, defended his actions by citing Article 28E of the 1945 Constitution, Higher Education Law Number 12 of 2012, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), all of which guarantee academic freedom. He viewed the discussion as a matter of moral and intellectual responsibility, not political maneuvering.
Tegar passionately believes Damar's suspension represents a crackdown on student activism and a violation of academic freedom, transforming the university from a space for knowledge creation into a tool for those "afraid of history." He sees it as a sign of democratic regression, stifling critical thinking and free expression, and even a resurgence of New Order-era repression.
The LMID is demanding the university revoke Damar's suspension, restore his academic rights and freedom of expression, and cease intimidating student intellectual activities. They are calling for the rector to take responsibility, issue a public apology, and for the Ministry of Education to intervene.
This case highlights a crucial tension: the balance between academic freedom and university regulations, especially when dealing with sensitive political topics. It also raises questions about the role of universities in fostering critical thinking and open debate. Could this suspension be interpreted as an attempt to stifle dissent and control the narrative surrounding Soeharto's legacy?
What do you think? Was the university justified in suspending Damar, or was this a violation of his academic freedom? Should universities be allowed to restrict discussions on controversial political topics? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
