The University of North Sumatra (USU) has launched a formal investigation into allegations that a student from its Economics and Business School has sexually harassed numerous peers, marking the latest in a troubling series of such cases to emerge from Indonesian campuses. The unnamed student, identified only by initials CHS, stands accused of orchestrating a pattern of abuse that allegedly victimised as many as 60 students, according to reports that have circulated widely across social media platforms.
USU's public relations chief Irsan Mulyadi confirmed that the university's leadership is treating the matter with urgency and has begun examining the allegations through established institutional channels. The university has specifically instructed all alleged victims to file formal complaints with its Sexual Harassment Handling and Prevention (PPKS) task force, a mechanism designed to ensure standardised processing and documentation of such serious claims. This procedural step serves dual purposes: it creates an official record while simultaneously allowing the institution to ascertain the true scope of the harassment.
The disparity between alleged and confirmed complaints reveals a significant gap typical of sexual harassment investigations. While an informal WhatsApp group reportedly contains approximately 60 individuals claiming to be victims, only ten had filed official reports with the PPKS task force as of the initial reporting period. Irsan expressed confidence that additional complainants would come forward once they understood the university's commitment to protection and confidentiality. This pattern suggests that many victims may harbour fears about retaliation, social stigma, or the efficacy of institutional responses—concerns that have plagued sexual harassment investigations globally.
The accused student has thus far evaded accountability by failing to respond to a formal summons from the university rectorate. Despite receiving a letter at his parents' residence, CHS had not appeared before university officials by the reporting deadline, complicating efforts to proceed with the investigation. This non-compliance raises questions about whether the university possesses adequate enforcement mechanisms to compel participation from accused parties and whether current protocols adequately address situations where respondents refuse cooperation.
The allegations surfaced when a student identified as H confided in a peer named RI about an unsettling encounter with her senior, CHS. According to RI's account, the accused lured H into his vehicle under false pretences and engaged in inappropriate physical contact including kissing and other indecent acts. Rather than remaining silent, RI publicised the incident on Instagram, initially focusing on explicit messages that CHS had allegedly sent to H. This digital disclosure proved catalytic, prompting numerous others to contact RI through direct messages and share evidence of their own encounters with the accused.
The allegations paint a picture of a predatory individual employing diverse manipulation tactics tailored to individual victims. According to RI's statements to media, CHS allegedly solicited hotel stays with victims, coerced unwilling participants into sexual video calls, and requested explicit images. Beyond these direct assaults, he allegedly subjected targets to verbal sexual harassment, frequently transmitted pornographic content via Instagram Reels, and used explicit language designed to provoke and humiliate. The allegations encompass not only female students but also male victims, suggesting a pattern of indiscriminate targeting rather than abuse driven by specific gender-based motives.
Geographically, the reported victims extend beyond USU's Medan campus to encompass students from multiple universities across the region, indicating that CHS's predatory behaviour transcended institutional boundaries. This geographic dispersion likely contributed to the delayed detection of his conduct, as victims at different universities may have initially attributed their experiences to isolated incidents rather than recognising them as part of a coordinated pattern of abuse.
The USU case reflects a broader institutional crisis within Indonesian higher education. Simultaneously, Muhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta (UMY) found itself investigating a lecturer from its Pharmacy Study Programme accused of sending sexually inappropriate and suggestive messages to students. Screenshots of WhatsApp conversations alleging misconduct by the faculty member circulated on social media, prompting UMY to suspend the individual pending completion of its internal investigation. This case demonstrates that sexual harassment within Indonesian universities encompasses not only peer-to-peer conduct but also abuse of power dynamics between lecturers and students.
The University of Indonesia (UI) already confronted a significant sexual harassment scandal earlier in the year when screenshots of group chats involving 16 law students went viral. Those students allegedly harassed dozens of female peers and teaching staff through an organised coordinated campaign. Following investigation, UI's PPKS task force determined that 15 of the 16 students had committed sexual harassment. The university imposed proportionate but measured penalties: three students received three-semester suspensions, seven received two-semester suspensions, and four received one-semester suspensions, while one student was given minor administrative sanction. All suspended students were mandated to undergo psychological counselling and attend anti-sexual violence seminars designed to prevent recidivism.
These cascading revelations across multiple premier Indonesian universities suggest that sexual harassment on campus represents a systemic problem rather than isolated incidents of individual misconduct. The viral nature of these disclosures, enabled by social media platforms and informal networks of victims, indicates that institutional mechanisms for addressing harassment have historically been insufficient to prevent abuse or provide adequate victim support. The fact that victims feel compelled to publicise allegations through Instagram and WhatsApp rather than first approaching institutional authorities suggests a profound deficit of trust in university grievance systems.
For Malaysian university administrators and policymakers, the Indonesian experience offers cautionary lessons regarding the necessity of robust, transparent, and victim-centred sexual harassment protocols. The effectiveness of task forces like PPKS depends not merely on their institutional existence but on widespread awareness among students, faculty accessibility to those mechanisms, genuine confidentiality protections, and consequences that meaningfully deter future misconduct. Universities throughout Southeast Asia would be prudent to evaluate their existing frameworks against the failures evident in these cases and to prioritise survivor support over institutional reputation management.
The emerging pattern across Indonesian campuses underscores that tackling sexual harassment requires sustained institutional commitment extending beyond reactive investigation of alleged incidents. Preventive education, regular training for all community members, clear reporting pathways with multiple entry points, and transparent accountability measures represent essential components of genuinely protective campus environments. Without such systemic reform, Indonesian and regional universities will likely continue experiencing similar cycles of concealment, belated exposure, and reactive institutional response that characterise the current moment.
