Bandung. The selection of three rector candidates for the Indonesian Education University (UPI) has sparked protests from several members of the university’s Academic Senate, who claim the process lacked transparency and failed to follow the official selection procedures set by the Board of Trustees (MWA).

According to the critics, the narrowing down of nine prospective candidates to just three was carried out in a manner that disregarded the MWA’s own regulation on the rector selection process.

“Article 17 of MWA Regulation No. 1/2025 on UPI Rector Selection clearly states that candidates must be chosen based on an independent assessment, track record, submitted work plans, and input from Academic Senate members. Judging by these four criteria, we question the credibility of the final selection by the MWA,” said Amung Ma’mun, a Senate member from the Faculty of Sports and Health Education, speaking to reporters on Tuesday.

Amung, a professor of sports policy and development, stressed that the UPI Rector is a public official, and as such, the public has a right to know how the selection was made. He urged the MWA to release the independent evaluation results and Senate recommendations that formed the basis of the decision.

“We believe the decision-making process for selecting the final three candidates was conducted behind closed doors. This contradicts the selection committee’s own slogan of ‘values for value, full commitment, no conspiracy.’ The integrity pledge appears to be a mere formality,” said Amung, who himself was a rector candidate in 2005.

Another Senate member, Edi Suryadi, expressed disappointment that the MWA had not followed up on concerns raised by nine Senate members during a previous hearing. During that session, the senators called for a review of MWA Regulation No. 1/2025, arguing that it conflicted with UPI’s Statute.

“At that hearing, one MWA member said the main criteria for selecting the rector candidates would be the results of the leadership and managerial competency assessment conducted by the independent team. But in reality, the process and outcome were not transparently communicated to the candidates or the academic community,” Edi said.

“This raises serious questions about the claims of objectivity and transparency made by the Chair of the MWA and the Head of the Rector Election Committee. One of them even stated that the committee’s accountability extends beyond this world and into the hereafter,” added Edi, a professor of educational communication at the Faculty of Economics and Business Education.

Edi noted that legal action might be pursued by rejected candidates, with potential lawsuits filed at the State Administrative Court (PTUN). He said there are two possible legal grounds for such a challenge.

First, the MWA regulation stipulates a ‘one person, three votes’ mechanism, yet in the case of the minister representing higher education, only one vote was counted -- clearly contradicting UPI’s Statute.

“Second, the final selection did not objectively consider the assessment scores, candidate track records, or work plan presentations. In other words, the MWA violated its own regulation,” he said.

The day before the controversy erupted, the MWA had officially named three final rector candidates: Didi Sukyadi, Vanessa Gaffar, and Yudi Kusmayadi, in a closed-door session. Nu’man Abdulhakim, Chair of the 2025 - 2030 Rector Election Committee, claimed the evaluation was objective and involved independent institutions.