Kekerasan Seksual di Kampus

Main ideas / lessons conveyed

• Sexual violence can happen anywhere, including universities, even though campus is widely viewed as a “safe and respectful” place for learning and work.
• Universities are among the most vulnerable settings (based on the speaker’s discussion of public cases), because campuses are open social spaces where many interactions occur.
• Discussing sexual violence on campus is important to:
  • make campuses safe, comfortable, and conducive for study/work,
  • uphold campus integrity,
  • and ensure students can contribute to society and complete education safely.

Key concepts

Sexual violence is gender-based and power-related

• Patriarchal cultural context can shape how women and men are perceived (e.g., women treated as sexual objects), creating conditions for violence.
• Unequal power relationships increase vulnerability—especially where access to outcomes (grades, recognition, academic advancement) depends on relationships.
• Layered power dynamics on campus (e.g., senior–junior, age differences, student hierarchy) make victims—often those with lower power—more at risk.

Forms of sexual violence include more than “physical assaults”

• The video emphasizes that sexual violence includes psychological, physical, social impacts, and also non-physical/online-based acts.
• Examples given cover both overt acts and targeting through messages, recording, distribution, and harassment.

Regulations / policy framework mentioned

A) National / ministry-level policy (higher education)

• Permendikbud / Ministerial Regulation No. 30 of 2021
  • Topic: Prevention and handling of sexual violence in higher education
  • Used as the main basis for campus prevention and response mechanisms.

B) Internal campus regulations (university-level)

Examples mentioned for each campus’s internal rules, including:

• UGM Chancellor’s Regulation No. 1 of 2020
  • Topic: Prevention and handling of sexual violence in the UGM community
  • Mentioned as progress/change from earlier UGM ethics/conduct rules.

References to earlier UGM-related rules mentioned:

• Lecturer code of ethics regulation (2004)
• Chancellor’s decree / student code of conduct (No. 711 of 2013)
• 2016 UGM decree/guidelines on prevention of harassment in the UGM environment

Additional note:

The speaker hopes every campus creates internal policies aligned with the later ministry regulation.

Factors causing sexual violence on campus (as presented)

• Patriarchal cultural context
  • Women may be framed as sex objects.
  • Actions/performance by women may be stereotyped as “sexual.”
• Power relationships
  • People with lower power are more vulnerable.
  • Academic/recognition processes can create dependence (grades, exams, evaluations).
• Gender-based power within campus relationships
  • Example structure described: relationships where provider/authority roles differ by gender.
• Age and hierarchical power
  • Younger/underclass students can be vulnerable to senior students.
  • Example referenced: affirmative action students under a certain age (speaker mentioned “under 17”) being vulnerable to senior-perpetrated violence.

Detailed list: Forms of sexual violence described (from Permendikbud No. 30 of 2021)

The speaker describes a regulation framework that categorizes sexual violence by impact and by specific conduct types, including non-physical and online forms. Key examples listed include:

1) Acts affecting body/reproductive function and humiliating/harassing/attacking (general definition)

Sexual violence is described as acts that:

• humiliate, insult, harass, and/or attack a person’s body and/or reproductive function
• due to unequal power relations and/or gender

Effects emphasized:

• psychological impact, physical impact
• disruption of reproductive health
• can also limit the victim’s ability to study safely and optimally.

2) Non-physical and online-based sexual violence (detailed examples)

Examples specifically mentioned:

• Conveying statements that:
  • discriminate or harass
  • objectify or sexualize physical appearance, body conditions, or gender identity
• Showing genitals intentionally or without victim consent
• Sending statements or “jokes” such as:
  • seduction jokes
  • whistling
• Staring at the victim with sexual nuances
• Sending:
  • joke messages
  • sexual-nuance SMS/chat messages
  • images, photos, audio, or videos with sexual content to the victim (especially if prohibited by the victim)
• Taking/recording/distributing sexual-nuanced media without consent
  • including uploading photos without consent
• Spreading information related to:
  • the victim’s body or personal sexual “nuances” without permission (not only explicit genital photos)

3) Voyeurism / “peeping” (mentioned generally)

• Included as part of the covered detailed acts.

4) Coercion, exploitation, and ritual/punitive transactions (mentioned)

• Persuading, promising, offering something, or threatening the victim to carry out an act/transition
• “Ritual transactions” framed as part of exploitation
• Including sexual coercion linked to power imbalance.

5) Physical acts (touching/harassment)

Physical touching actions such as:

• touching
• rubbing
• holding
• hugging

The speaker uses a term resembling “annuantitaching/annuntitaching” (unclear subtitle text) to refer to repeated/forced touching behavior.

6) Sexual punishment/discipline practices

• Practices where one student is punished by another (or others) in relation to sexuality.

Handling process when sexual violence occurs (procedural steps)

A) Task Force mechanism (required structure)

• The ministry regulation (Permendikbud No. 30 of 2021) requires each university to form a Task Force responsible for prevention and handling.
• The Task Force workflow described includes:
  • Receive reports from victims
  • Provide assistance/support to victims based on their needs
  • Follow up on the case until
  • Examination/processing of the reported party
  • Imposition of sanctions on the reporter/perpetrator (as appropriate)
  • Victim recovery/support afterward

B) Integrated service system (how the victim is supported)

• UGM is described as emphasizing integrated handling/services, so victims do not have to repeat processes.
• Support pathways described:
  • Counseling / psychological care if needed
  • Medical services via a university hospital if needed
  • Police reporting support if the case must be processed criminally
• Speed emphasis:
  • “Fast process” described as within 1–2 x 24 hours (speaker indicates urgent timelines).

C) Handling standards emphasized

Victim-centered and rights-based standards:

• Empathetic and sensitive approach
• Disability-friendly accommodations (diverse victim needs)
• Independence during perpetrator examination/processing
• Confidentiality:
  • protect victim identity and report information
  • prevent spread of information that could endanger the victim

The speaker also mentions:

• protection for victims, witnesses, and companions
• victims have a right to receive information about:
  • handling steps
  • timelines/what will happen
  • potential sanctions and the process

Prevention approach (detailed concepts)

• Prevention is emphasized as crucial because handling alone creates a cycle of repeated cases.
• Prevention measures referenced as being part of Permendikbud No. 30 of 2021 include:

1) Indirect and educational prevention

• Include materials on sexual violence in introductory programs/courses
• Conduct training/socialization for campus community (e.g., promotion/training mentioned)
• Provide guidelines on reporting so people know:
  • whom to report to
  • through what media/platform

2) Strengthening perspectives and awareness

Strengthen:

• gender perspective
• understanding of women’s sexuality
• awareness and inclusion regarding disabilities

3) Reporting/complaint mechanisms and localization

Create and strengthen:

• complaint/reporting mechanisms at internal and external levels

Ensure people know:

• how to use the Task Force
• the existence and location of the Task Force

Examples mentioned:

• socializing Task Force existence
• using warning signs indicating “areas free from sexual violence”
• campaigns through social media, dialogue seminars, and collaborations between faculties/universities/other parties

4) Code of ethics and conduct enforcement in campus communities

Build/strengthen:

• code of ethics for student organizations
• code of ethics for lecturers
• code of ethics for staff and other relevant parties

5) Restriction on individual meetings outside campus

• The speaker mentions a regulation restricting individual meetings outside campus areas.
• Intended rationale:
  • reduce opportunities for violence to occur in inappropriate off-campus places (e.g., cafes/hotels/other locations).
• Clarification described:
  • campus activities should be centered on campus
  • individual off-campus meetings require appropriate permission.

Types of campus cases described (practical examples from UGM experience/surveys)

The speaker (as part of UGM Task Force experience) says cases occur in many ways, including:

• sexual harassment and whistling
• physical unwanted touching
• victims may be reluctant to explicitly say no/stop, but show nonverbal rejection.

Online/remote sexual violence highlighted:

• SMS/chat messages with sexual content
• recording without consent
• threats related to distribution/leakage of sexual materials

Perpetrator relationships most commonly described

Perpetrators include:

• lecturers
• academic staff
• students targeting female students (most common described)

The speaker challenges an assumption that sexual violence is only between lecturers and students:

• many cases occur outside class and often in student-to-student contexts
• examples: studying together in cafes, activities in organizations

The speaker emphasizes that:

• lecturer–student cases can happen, but are described as less common than student–student cases (in their account).

Handling differences based on involved parties

Lecturer–student cases

• Require more careful handling
• Concern mentioned: high-position lecturers may face skepticism (“people may not believe” or may believe they won’t be prosecuted).
• UGM is said to have resolved lecturer–student cases with sanctions.

Student–student cases

• If within the same faculty, handling is coordinated by the faculty
• If across different faculties, the Task Force plays a larger role (protective process until sanctions)

The speaker notes:

• standards are similar: victims have rights to protection, services, timely examination, confidentiality, and information.

Criminal vs internal resolution (how it can continue beyond campus)

• Handling outcomes are described as not uniform.
• The regulation allows:
  • victim choices/preferences may include internal resolution only, ethical/internal mechanisms, or proceeding externally.
• Criminal escalation depends on the type/severity of crime:
  • internal resolution does not replace resolution in the criminal realm
  • for more serious crimes (example mentioned: rape), it must proceed criminally even if the victim prefers otherwise
  • for less serious sexual violence categories, it may remain at the internal realm depending on victim interest and the legal category.

Speakers / sources featured

• Priyan Kasian Resi (Master of Law student; host/intro speaker)
• Mrs. Sriwiyanti Adiyono (“Mrs. Yik”) (guest speaker; explains regulations, prevention, handling, and campus cases)
• Permendikbud / Ministerial Regulation No. 30 of 2021 (Prevention and handling of sexual violence in higher education)
• UGM Chancellor’s Regulation No. 1 of 2020 (prevention and handling within UGM community)
• Earlier UGM references mentioned:
  • Lecturer code of ethics regulation (2004)
  • Chancellor’s student code of conduct regulation (No. 711 of 2013)
  • UGM decree/guidelines (2016) on prevention of harassment in the UGM environment