Kompas, page 12
The plan for the inclusion of the President in the Rector’s election should be discussed thoroughly before it is publicly launched. Pro-contra that evolved potentially obscure the substance, especially efforts to ward off radicalism. Education observer Doni Koesoema said the Rector’s election should not involve the President because it is not the main duty and function of the President. Let the democracy on campus run; then the process is arranged so that the elected rectors do really have integrity.
According to Doni, the person in charge of higher education is the Minister of Education and Higher Education. If there is a campus indicated by radicalism, it is his duty to foster and assist by providing good, democratic, and respectful regulation of campus autonomy as an independent learning institution.
Professor of State University of Jakarta (UNJ) Muchlis Luddin reminded, whatever the mechanism, the election of the rector should display the figure of an academically qualified reputation and capable of collegial managerial. Muchlis rated, Rector election lately tends to be politicized. The campus became a practical political arena so that the elected candidate was more due to the ability to raise support, not because of scientific, managerial, leadership, and networking capabilities. After the election, there appear factions that hamper collaboration to advance the college.
Meanwhile, Professor of the Indonesia Education University (UPI) S Hamid Hasan views the burden of the President’s task is greater if involved in the election of the Rector. Let the rectors’ election remain the authority of the Minister of Research and Technology and Higher Education, but the letter of appointment of the Rector is signed by the President. He added, who can guarantee that the figure elected Rector is capable of warding off campus radicalism? What a decline in the authority of the President if later radicalism could not completely disappear from campus.