Honorary degree neglects people’s suffering

Theoretically not only should a university be a place of study and research, it should also be a place where knowledge and theory are examined as to whether they match what is really happening in society.

On one hand, a university should connect with reality, responding to political, social and economic demands. In this vein, a university, whose expensive administration is paid for through taxpayer money, should contribute to the needs of people.

On the other hand, a university — like an ancient monastery, ashram or other kinds of secluded places for hermits and ascetics — should be an “ivory tower”, immune from short-term political and social maneuvers.

This description is of an ideal university, where research among intellectuals and service to the people go hand in hand. The university is a modern monastery and intellectuals who live there are modern priests and monks, as Roland Barthes, a French post-modernist literary critic, put it.

However, in today’s Indonesia, politics — rather than knowledge or wisdom — is the driving force. Political considerations are often put ahead of everything else.

Sadly, the quest for knowledge receives too little attention. Bureaucrats and politicians are honored much more than scientists, scholars or intellectuals, who often want to become politicians when the opportunities arise.

Campuses in Indonesia illustrate this situation. The election of rectors, deans and heads of departments are engulfed by political maneuvering and intrigue. No wonder that politics has a higher place on campus than knowledge and research.

Worse still, universities in this country have produced a huge number of plagiarists. Plagiarism can easily be spotted in students’ final papers, theses and dissertations. Like it or not, university professors also set an appalling example.

Additionally, the ranking system for lecturers and professors, set up by the National Education Ministry, is based on administrative procedure rather than research leading to discoveries and inventions.

It is therefore difficult for many Indonesian scholars and researchers working abroad with international reputations to integrate themselves into the education system in Indonesia. Unsurprisingly, they are reluctant to return home.

It is no secret that those who receive professorships are not those who present new theories and findings, but those who fulfill administrative requirements. Bureaucracy — instead of research or invention — serves as both the standard and measurement in campuses. This is why it is hard for Indonesian universities to catch up with other leading international universities.

Keeping the above context in mind, the University of Indonesia (UI) courted King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, by awarding him an honorary doctorate.

To summarize the criticism and objections raised by scores of human right activists and intellectuals, from inside UI and outside the UI, there is no acceptable fundamental logic behind the award.

Both academically and morally, the procedure is defective. Political reasons, on which many other decisions are often based, were perhaps the answer. Like the awards granted to Abdullah Gul and Hasanal
Bolkiah, the award to King Abdullah is perhaps aimed at pursuing political — perhaps also financial — benefits.

The arguments behind the award and the objections perhaps can easily be juxtaposed as follows:

The king is considered to have modernized Islamic education, by for example allowing men and women to attend university. In fact, all modern democratic countries — including Muslim countries, such as Indonesia, Turkey, and Malaysia — have embraced the principle of gender equality, allowing men and women to pursue education equally and to communicate with each other. Note that women cannot drive freely in Saudi.

The king is considered to have advanced technology and science by promoting renewable technology.
In fact, Saudi Arabia is a rich country, having no financial difficulties in supporting such a program. Many European countries have also taken this step.

The king is considered to have supported inter-religious dialogue and promoted moderate Islam. Note that no place of worship other than mosques is permitted in both Mecca and Medina. The king is considered to have supported peace in Middle East, such as mutual dialogue between Israel and Palestine. This is likely the only sound premise.

One more question can perhaps be raised; can the issue of human rights, including abuses against
Indonesian migrant workers, be taken into account? Is this a non-academic issue?

The writer is lecturer at the Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University, Yogyakarta.