Recent disciplinary controversies on Indonesian campuses have sparked widespread debate among students. One case involved students who reportedly received severe sanctions after engaging in consensual same-sex intimacy on campus. Around the same time, discussions surrounding cases of sexual harassment and sexual violence at universities raised questions about whether institutions respond with the same level of urgency and severity when students are harmed.

These cases are different in nature and should not be treated as equivalent. One concerns consensual actions between adults, while the other involves behavior that may violate another person's safety, autonomy, and well-being. Nevertheless, many students have questioned why certain cases appear to attract stronger public outrage and harsher disciplinary consequences than others.

This imbalance raises questions about institutional priorities. Universities have a responsibility to uphold their regulations and maintain order within their communities. However, when disciplinary responses appear harsher toward consensual acts than toward conduct that directly harms others, students may begin to wonder what institutions are ultimately trying to protect. In some cases, universities can appear more concerned with preserving moral norms or maintaining their public image than addressing threats to student safety and well-being.

The conversation becomes even more complicated when LGBTQ+ students are involved. In Indonesia, discussions about sexuality rarely occur in a neutral environment. LGBTQ+ individuals continue to face social stigma, public scrutiny, and political debate. Because of this, disciplinary cases involving queer students are often viewed through lenses that extend beyond the specific actions being investigated.

This does not mean every disciplinary decision is driven by discrimination. However, the disparity in reactions invites an important question: would the same level of scrutiny, condemnation, and punishment occur if the individuals involved were a heterosexual couple? While there may not be a definitive answer, the question reflects concerns shared by many students regarding equal treatment and fairness.

Beyond questions of equality, there is also the issue of proportionality. Students have questioned not only whether everyone is treated by the same standards, but also whether the punishment itself reflects the severity of the harm caused. If disciplinary measures are intended to uphold justice, then sanctions should be proportionate to the impact of the behavior being addressed.

The contrast becomes even more striking when compared to public responses toward cases involving sexual harassment or sexual violence. Such cases often involve direct harm to victims and can leave lasting emotional and psychological impacts. Yet discussions surrounding accountability in these situations do not always receive the same visibility or intensity as cases involving consensual same-sex relationships. This discrepancy has led many students to question whether institutional and public responses are shaped more by discomfort with certain identities than by the actual harm involved.

Universities should distinguish between behavior that violates institutional rules and behavior that causes harm. While both may warrant disciplinary action, treating them with the same level of severity risks overlooking a crucial difference. Rules exist to maintain order, but disciplinary systems should also consider the degree of harm involved. When sanctions appear disproportionate, students may question whether universities are prioritizing justice, morality, or institutional reputation.

For LGBTQ+ students, this issue extends beyond a single controversy. It concerns whether campuses can truly function as environments where all students are treated equally, regardless of their gender or sexuality. Fairness requires more than rules. It requires those rules to be applied consistently, transparently, and without prejudice.

The challenge facing universities is not whether regulations should exist. The challenge facing universities is not whether regulations should exist. The real challenge is maintaining the legitimacy of disciplinary systems when punishments appear disconnected from the actual severity of harm caused. If sanctions are perceived as disproportionate, institutions risk losing the trust of the students they are meant to serve. Only then can institutions build trust among the students they claim to serve.

Journalist: Aissah Nindy Putri Krisdianto