I

n his opinion piece titled “Academic freedom and defense policy” (The Jakarta Post, July 23), Evan A. Laksmana created confusion because of the choice of title for his writing. Academic freedom and defense policy are two different entities.

Defense policy does not directly suppress academic freedom. Anyone should have the freedom to express their opinion, and defense policy does not justify a recommendation on dismissing teaching staff.

The basic problem that Evan avoids is how academic freedom related to an institution named the Indonesian Defense University (IDU) has to submit to the rules and legislation that apply. Evan’s debate does not touch upon that subject. He is busy explaining different things that have no connection with each other, and looks like he is only trying to legitimize the IDU rector’s statement of Al Araf’s dismissal as a lecturer from the IDU is because his “academic criticism” against the Defense Ministry’s plan to acquire Sukhoi jet fighters and Leopard tanks.

The position of the IDU is clear, based on its establishment by the Presidential Regulation No. 5/2011. Article 2 of the regulation states that when it comes to academics, the IDU is technically guided by the Education and Culture Ministry and in terms of functions it is technically guided by the Defense Ministry.

Here lies the problem: the Defense Ministry can only intervene functionally on the management of the university. The domain of academic freedom is under the guidance of the Education and Culture Ministry. Never before has a lecturer been dismissed because of his or her academic criticism. If Evan agrees with this, he is part of the regime that suppresses academic freedom.

The dismissal of Al Araf is irrelevant, even if lawfully defective. Not only was it through an undignified mechanism, which was through a short text message, but also technically the IDU Rector Syarifuddin Tippe admitted that the reason for the dismissal came after a telephone conversation with the Defense Ministry. What is more concerning is that Al Araf was dismissed because of writings that are not within his capacity as an IDU lecturer, but in his personal capacity. The dismissal hurts not only academic freedom, but also Al Araf’s individual rights to speak and opine.

Even more, if Evan examines Article 51 Paragraph 1 (e) of Law No. 14/2005 on the national education system law, it is stated clearly that in the execution of his or her professional duty, a lecturer has academic freedom, an academic platform and scientific autonomy. The problem is, why has Evan, as a member of a distinguished research institution, distorted this problem in the name of defense policy and an ideal civilian and military relationship?

On academic criticism, Evan is not “someone new” in understanding the problem and in my opinion will not agree on suppressing academic freedom. Maybe the problem is that Evan only follows the development of this case from the US and did not obtain all of the information. He must know, even as the IDU rector, Mr. Tippe has also raised his criticism and opinions on the decline of the TNI’s professionalism that was published in the May 7, 2012 edition of a national newspaper. Why then, when criticism is raised by an IDU lecturer, different treatment is given? Perhaps because the topic of the criticism is the controversial Sukhoi jets and Leopard tanks procurement.

What Evan should know, in the case of Al Araf’s dismissal, it is clear that the IDU has violated Law No. 14/2005, Chapter 7, Article 75 paragraph 2 and 4, which states that a lecturer has the right to protection in performing his or her duty as a professional from restriction of academic freedom, academic platform and scientific autonomy, and other limitations that hinder him or her in performing his or her duty. Article 79 further states that education institutions that violate lecturer’s rights are subject to penalties. So this is not a problem of academic freedom against defense policy.

Even if Evan tries to associate academic freedom and defense policy, then he has made a fundamental error. Criticism on the Sukhoi and Leopard, in my opinion, remains within the frame of constructive academic debate. The war machines are procured using public funds and defense policy as a public domain can legitimately be criticized and scrutinized.

Academics and academic institutions play an important role in maintaining common sense and serve as a bastion of scientific debate to provide ideas and criticism on matters of defense policy.

As senior political scientists, Ikrar Nusa Bhakti and Indria Samego said that the IDU does not have a mechanism to deal with academic freedom. Moreover, Al Araf wrote his articles as his personal opinion, which is guaranteed by the Constitution and international conventions on civilian political rights.

We, including Evan, surely do not want to move back to the New Order era, when universities, students and lecturers came under the state’s control. The case of Al Araf’s dismissal is not only a matter of academic freedom and freedom of opinion, but also defiance of old ways that reduce the dignity of science and humanity.

If the IDU does not submit to the rules of transfer of knowledge and the laws on the national education system and higher education system, then the IDU should be declared a part of the Defense Ministry, instead of a university.

A university is not an ivory tower, where academic debates are imprisoned by the walls of bureaucracy. It bears a mandate to enlighten the public and to fight for academic freedom. As a National Commission on Education member, Yura Pratama Yudhistira once said the key to academic freedom lies in each individual academic within a university, not the university itself.

The writer is an alumni of ITB-Cranfield University and a guest lecturer at the Indonesian Defense University, Jakarta.