The Minister of Higher Education, Science, and Technology, Brian Yuliarto, stated that universities must actively participate in government programs, including establishing Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) kitchens on every campus. The idea has sparked criticism among academics, who argue that higher education institutions risk shifting away from their core functions in education, research, and community service to become technical operators of government programs.
Dr. Subarsono, a lecturer in Public Policy and Management at Universitas Gadjah Mada and a public policy analysis expert, said the proposed policy deviates significantly from universities’ primary duties and functions. According to him, the plan is inconsistent with the vision and mission of higher education institutions. He emphasized that campuses should remain focused on improving academic quality.
“Universities should not operate Nutrition Fulfillment Service Units (SPPG) because they are unrelated to the vision, mission, and Tri Dharma of Higher Education,” he said on Tuesday (May 12).
Dr. Subarsono noted that campus involvement in running the program could drain substantial internal resources. The large-scale management of meal kitchens, he argued, could burden campus infrastructure, ranging from human resources to the complexity of waste management.
“University involvement in managing MBG will consume significant campus resources, including human resources, electricity, water, waste management, as well as health and nutrition monitoring,” he explained.
Beyond technical concerns, he also warned of potential threats to academic independence. If universities become directly involved in implementing government programs, the academic community’s critical stance toward public policy could weaken due to conflicts of interest.
“How can universities remain vocal and critical if they are involved in and benefiting from the implementation of MBG, a program currently surrounded by many issues and consuming a massive portion of the state budget?” he asserted.
He further argued that university participation in the program could create negative public perceptions. The public, he said, may interpret such involvement as an attempt by the government to silence critical voices from educational institutions by assigning them roles in the project.
“The public will view this as a form of campus politicization, and the government will gain greater legitimacy when universities are involved in SPPG. This will also affect the academic community, making it less capable of critically assessing government policies and programs,” he said.
Dr. Subarsono also reminded the public of potential legal consequences if operational problems arise in the field, including concerns over food poisoning cases that continue to shadow the program. He suggested that universities remain outside the program’s operational sphere to preserve institutional integrity.
“Campuses should remain outside the MBG program. This is the rational choice to preserve the dignity of universities and prevent them from being drawn into the current cycle of controversy,” Subarsono concluded.
Author: Cyntia Noviana
Editor: Gusti Grehenson
Post-editor: Zabrina Kumara
Photo: Kompas.com