The University of North Sumatra (USU) has initiated an internal investigation into allegations that an economics student engaged in systematic sexual harassment affecting as many as 60 individuals, a development that underscores escalating concerns about workplace misconduct within Indonesian tertiary institutions. The accused student, identified by the initials CHS, faces claims that have proliferated across social media platforms and reportedly extend beyond USU's campus to other universities in the region, involving both male and female complainants.
According to Irsan Mulyadi, USU's public relations and promotions manager, the university leadership has prioritised the matter and begun formal proceedings against the student. Authorities have appealed to alleged victims to lodge official complaints with the university's Sexual Harassment Handling and Prevention (PPKS) task force, a mechanism designed to standardise how such cases are processed and documented. This institutional framework represents an effort to move allegations from informal social media complaints into formal investigative channels where evidence can be systematically evaluated and appropriate sanctions determined.
The discrepancy between the number of alleged victims and those who have formally reported their experiences reveals a significant gap in institutional responsiveness. While approximately 60 individuals reportedly formed a WhatsApp group to collectively address the accusations, only ten had submitted official reports to the PPKS task force as of Saturday. This gap suggests that victims may harbour concerns about confidentiality, the efficacy of institutional processes, or the perceived burden of formal complaint procedures—barriers that universities across Southeast Asia have struggled to overcome.
The allegations surfaced after one student, identified as H, disclosed an uncomfortable encounter with CHS to a peer known as RI. That peer subsequently posted about the incident on Instagram, including claims that CHS had pressured H into physical contact and inappropriate behaviour inside a vehicle. The social media post catalysed broader disclosure, as other individuals began contacting RI privately to report comparable experiences, providing what they characterised as documentary evidence of similar conduct.
According to accounts provided by RI, the alleged harassment employed multiple tactics spanning different digital and physical contexts. The accused student allegedly solicited individuals to meet at hotels, participated in sexual activities via video communication, requested explicit imagery, used sexually explicit language in messages, and circulated pornographic content through Instagram Reels to elicit responses. These allegations suggest a pattern of behaviour rather than isolated incidents, distinguishing the case as one involving systematic pursuit rather than spontaneous misconduct.
The University of North Sumatra rectorate attempted to formally address the allegations by summoning CHS to respond, dispatching correspondence to his family residence on July 10. However, as of Friday afternoon, the student had not appeared to answer the charges, complicating efforts to obtain his account of the allegations and proceed with standard investigative protocols. This non-appearance raises procedural questions about how universities should handle cases where accused individuals resist institutional processes, and whether additional mechanisms—such as mandatory attendance requirements or external authority involvement—should be activated.
The CHS case is neither isolated nor novel within the Indonesian university system. Muhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta (UMY) is concurrently investigating a lecturer employed within the Pharmacy Study Programme at its Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, following the circulation of WhatsApp screenshots on social media containing allegedly inappropriate and sexually suggestive communications directed toward students. The university has suspended the lecturer pending investigation outcomes, signalling institutional capacity to impose interim protective measures while proceedings continue.
More significantly, the University of Indonesia (UI) uncovered a major misconduct scandal earlier this year involving sixteen law students accused of sexually harassing dozens of female peers and academic staff members. An investigation by UI's PPKS task force substantiated claims against fifteen of the sixteen students, resulting in differentiated penalties reflecting case severity. Three students faced three-semester suspensions, seven received two-semester suspensions, and four were suspended for one semester, while one student received minor administrative sanction. Critically, the fifteen suspended students were required to complete psychological counselling and enroll in anti-sexual violence courses, indicating institutional recognition that disciplinary measures alone are insufficient without complementary interventions addressing underlying attitudes and behaviours.
These successive cases reveal patterns in how Indonesian universities are responding to sexual harassment disclosures. The emergence of allegations through social media rather than through formal institutional channels suggests that victims perceive informal networks as more trustworthy or protective than official procedures. This phenomenon reflects broader institutional trust deficits across Southeast Asia, where campus communities have historically encountered barriers to effective reporting and meaningful accountability. Universities implementing PPKS task forces represent genuine institutional evolution, yet the lag between alleged victim counts and formal complaints indicates that structural mechanisms alone cannot overcome victims' reluctance to engage formal processes.
The involvement of students from multiple institutions in some allegations, including the CHS case, suggests that perpetrators may exploit their mobility across campus networks, selecting targets across institutional boundaries where accountability mechanisms remain fragmented. This geographic dispersal complicates individual universities' investigative capacity and suggests a need for coordinated inter-institutional approaches to identifying patterns of behaviour that transcend single-campus boundaries. Malaysian and other Southeast Asian universities observing these Indonesian cases should consider whether their own institutional structures adequately capture allegations involving individuals who maintain multiple institutional affiliations or social networks.
The psychological and pedagogical dimensions of these cases warrant attention beyond disciplinary frameworks. Requiring misconduct-convicted students to undergo counselling and education programs reflects recognition that punishment divorced from transformative engagement reproduces the same individuals within university communities without addressing root causes of harassing behaviour. For Malaysian institutions, the question emerges whether current approaches to student conduct comprehensively address the attitudinal, interpersonal, and power-dynamic factors that enable systematic harassment to persist unchecked across multiple alleged victims over extended periods.
Moving forward, Indonesian universities and their regional counterparts face a complex challenge: strengthening institutional mechanisms for receiving and processing complaints while simultaneously building victim confidence that formal reporting will produce meaningful protection and accountability. The apparent preference for social media disclosure over formal channels suggests that victims perceive informal networks as more protective, a calculation that universities must address through demonstrable commitment to confidentiality, timely investigation, transparent outcomes, and freedom from retaliation. Without such confidence, the gap between alleged incidents and formally reported complaints will perpetuate, leaving institutional misconduct largely invisible to official oversight and preventive intervention.
