Sexual Predators on Campus

Kompas

Heryunanto

Indonesian universities in have been struck by constant misfortune.

While the issues of the decline in academic freedom and democracy at campuses are as yet unresolved, including all their impacts, the issue of campus sexual violence has emerged, mostly with female students as victims.

It has turned out that the most respected institutions, the guardians of truth in the heart of society, are bearing the most embarrassing offense of sexual violence, and that which have been hidden under a tight lid, even for decades. Why?

Also read:

> Boost Protection for Women

> A Woman Knitting Hope

The perpetrators have generally been lecturers, thesis or dissertation advisors and academic advisors, including professors. They have great authority over students and are capable of determining their grades and whether they pass. The students can be at the bachelor, master or even doctoral levels.

Were the perpetrators ever punished for their deeds? This has rarely happened, and hardly any have even been taken to court. Why? Because there is no legal instrument that regulates this. Politically, any acknowledgement of campus sexual violence can cause embarrassment for the institution.

Sexual predators are in all corners of these campuses, hiding behind the guise of false and hypocritical moral ethics.

Hiding and ignoring these cases has been the path generally taken. Parents send their children to university in order to grow their intellect, but some become victimized. It turns out that campuses are not a safe place for students. A 2019 survey by The Jakarta Post found that 96 percent of the victims were female students. Sexual predators are in all corners of these campuses, hiding behind the guise of false and hypocritical moral ethics.

The state is the institution with the greatest responsibility for guaranteeing the protection of victims of sexual violence, including university students. So far, no adequate legal protection exists for such victims. Criminal law is insufficient, because it defines sexual violence only as a moral offense.

Crime against humanity

Sexual violence is a crime against humanity because its victims may lose their lives, be disabled or suffer lifelong trauma. The Law on Criminal Procedure does not support victims, as it imposes the burden of proof on them. This is difficult to fulfill because victims of sexual violence usually report the incident only after a long time has passed, so there is no evidence anymore.

KOMPAS/ABDULLAH FIKRI ASHRI

Suspected cases of sexual violence against children are displayed at the Cirebon Police Headquarters, West Java, Tuesday (14/9/2020).

There are thousands of victims every year, with the National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan) recording around 8,000 cases in 2020 alone, and many more cases going unreported. Around 5,000 cases involved perpetrators who should have protected the victims, such as fathers, elder brothers and uncles (incest), as well as schoolteachers, religious leaders, lecturers and police officers. The number of incest victims increased over the course of the pandemic.

Not long ago, the Education and Culture Minister’s Regulation (Permendikbud) No. 30/2021 was issued with an aim to protect students from sexual violence. The Permendikbud was highly anticipated for the zero tolerance for campus sexual violence it envisioned. In 2019, there were at least 174 cases at 79 universities in 29 provinces.

The perpetrators were fellow students, employees, religious figures on campus, university doctors and other members of the university community. Of the victims, 96 percent were female students. Some 20 percent did not report the incident, while 50 percent did not tell anybody (Vice Indonesia, Tirto, The Jakarta Post, 2019).

Also read:

> Digital Trap of Sexual and Economic Exploitation

> Online Violence Targets Women

But what happened? Some people opposed the Permendikbud, while it is t in fact the only legal shield available for the prevention and handling of sexual violence at higher education institutions. They voiced their opposition as interpretations and sentiments of political identity that harmed victims’ interests. Let us examine what is contained in the regulation.

Basic provisions

We will start from the basic provisions on sexual violence in Article 1.1 and details on acts of sexual violence in Article 5.1-5.5. Article 1.1 defines sexual violence as “any act that degrades, insults, harasses and/or harms the body and/or reproductive function of an individual as a result of an unequal relationship in terms of authority and/or gender, which results in or may result in psychological and/or physical suffering, including disruption to the individual’s reproductive health and opportunity to pursue higher education safely and optimally”.

This definition clearly explains that an act of sexual violence is one which (a) degrades, insults, harasses and/or harms an individual’s body and/or reproductive function, (b) is done in circumstances of an unequal relationship in terms of authority or gender, (c) results in psychological and physical suffering for the victims and disrupts their reproductive health and opportunity to study safely and optimally. This definition seems to have been developed on the basis of various cases and the experiences of thousands of victims.

KOMPAS/YOLA SASTRA

Women activists hold a silent action in commemoration of International Women's Day in front of the West Sumatra DPRD office, Padang, West Sumatra, Monday (8/3/2021).

Next, Article 5.1-5.5 covers: (a) the scope, (b) detailed acts of sexual violence and (c) the conditions under which an act of sexual violence must be considered a crime for ignoring consent, such as when the victim is underage, sick, helpless, or vulnerable for the various reasons described.

First, Article 5.1 covers verbal, nonphysical and physical violence as well as acts committed through digital technology. Second, Article 5.2 covers details on acts of sexual violence: (a) remarks that discriminate against or degrade an individual based on their physical appearance, physical condition and/or gender; (b) deliberately showing the genital organs without an individual’s consent; (c) any speech that references sex, including sexual innuendoes, jokes, and/or whistling, directed at an individual; (d) looking at an individual with sexual intent and/or suggestiveness; (e) sending sexually implicit messages, jokes, pictures, photos, audio and/or video recordings to individuals against their wish.

Following these are: (f) taking, recording and/or sharing photographs and/or audio/visual recordings of individuals of a sexual nature without their consent; (f) uploading sexually implicit photographs of an individual’s body and/or personal information without their consent; (e) sharing sexually implicit information about an individual’s bodies and/or personal features without their consent; (f) deliberately gazing or looking at an individual while they are engaged in a private activity and/or in a private space.

Next are: (g) persuading, promising, offering, or threatening an individual with sexual transaction or activity without their consent; (h) imposing sexually implicit punishment or sanctions; (i) physically touching, stroking, groping, holding, embracing, kissing and/or rubbing an individual without their consent; (j) removing an individual’s clothing without their consent; (k) forcing an individual into a sexual transaction or activity; (l) instilling a culture of sexual violence among students, educators and educational employees.

Also read:

> Waiting for Protection, Not Stigma

> Voices of Strong Women amid Pandemic

Further: (m) attempted rape without penetration; (o) committing rape with penetration, including objects or parts of the body other than the genital organs; (p) forcing or manipulating an individual into having an abortion; (q) forcing or manipulating an individual into becoming pregnant; (r) aiding and/or abetting acts of sexual violence.

Obviously, the detailed provisions of Article 5.1 and Article 5.2 (a)-(r) are based on actual cases.

Even the contemporary development of digital sex crimes is included. Victim services counselors, academics engaged in women’s studies, law and other social sciences, doctors and forensic experts fully understand that these acts indeed do occur and that victims have experienced them; particularly that the victims and their families experience suffering.

Individual consent

Third, individual consent, particularly in Paragraph 2 letters b, f, g, h, l and m, is not required if the victim is: (a) not of legal age pursuant to the existing laws; (b) in a situation in which the perpetrator uses threats, coercion and/or a position of power; (c) under the influence of drugs, alcohol and/or narcotics; (d) sick, unconscious or asleep; (e) vulnerable, physically and/or psychologically; (f) in a state of tonic immobility (incapacitated due to fear); and/or (g) in shock.

This provision elicited the loudest outcry. What the provision actually means is that an act of sexual violence must be considered to have occurred and individual consent is to be disregarded when the victim is in a vulnerable state. Aren’t all these from real cases?

Individuals are in a vulnerable state when they are underage or exploited by perpetrators more powerful than they are, threatened and become helpless as a result of manipulation by perpetrators, including being drugged so they become incapacitated, are unconscious, sick, sleeping, or have been rendered vulnerable due to a physical or psychological condition, experience tonic immobility or are in shock. Many reports have been recorded by victim services organizations, legal aid groups, and circulated on mass and social media about acts of sexual violence that have been committed under such circumstances.

Perhaps what is wanted is a stipulation that prohibits sexual acts outside the institution of marriage. This certainly cannot be provided here because this regulation is especially intended for victims of campus sexual violence. Moreover, sexual acts outside marriage are stipulated in our Criminal Code that is already 150 years old.

KOMPAS/RADITYA HELABUMI

Sulistyowati Irianto

Let us ask ourselves honestly: Do we need this Permendikbud for the prevention and handling of sexual violence against our children on campus? Because this criminal act can target anyone, including our children and family members, at any time. As a civilized and humane nation, the state and all of us are obliged to provide protection and ensure that everyone is free from the threat and act of sexual violence.

Sulistyowati Irianto, Cofounder of gender studies and law program, University of Indonesia Faculty of Law

(This article was translated by Aris Prawira).