Religious freedom and campus facilities: a legal analysis

University facilities are more than rooms, halls and outdoor spaces. They are shared civic environments where students study, organise, worship, debate and form communities. A policy governing religious use of a campus therefore raises questions about equality, freedom of belief, institutional authority, safety and the fair allocation of scarce space.

In Indonesia, these questions sit within constitutional guarantees of religion and expression, the national higher education framework and each university’s internal regulations. They also matter to Australian readers because Australian universities face similar disputes over prayer rooms, faith societies, religious festivals and access to multipurpose facilities, particularly across diverse campuses in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.

The legal foundations of religious activity on campus

The Indonesian Constitution protects freedom of religion under Article 28E and recognises the state’s role in guaranteeing religious freedom under Article 29(2). Article 28I also places freedom of thought and conscience among rights that receive especially strong protection. These provisions do not create an unlimited entitlement to any particular room or building, but they make religious practice a serious legal interest rather than a privilege that administrators may withdraw without justification.

The Higher Education Law and the human rights framework in Law No. 39 of 1999 reinforce the need for equal treatment and respect for student autonomy. A university may regulate when, where and how facilities are used, yet its rules should be based on a legitimate purpose. Preventing obstruction, protecting health and safety, managing noise, and coordinating bookings can all be valid aims. A blanket prohibition directed at religious activities as such is harder to defend.

The distinction between regulating conduct and suppressing belief is central. A university may prohibit harassment, coercion, discriminatory preaching or disruption of classes. It should be more cautious about prohibiting quiet prayer, study of religion or voluntary worship merely because officials dislike a particular faith, group or form of observance.

Facility access, equality and institutional power

Campus facilities are usually controlled through rectorate policies, student affairs regulations, building rules and booking systems. That administrative power must be exercised consistently. If a university permits secular clubs to reserve lecture theatres, courtyards or student centres, it should identify a principled reason before denying comparable access to a religious society. The relevant comparison is usually the activity and its impact, not whether the organiser has a religious identity.

Equality does not always mean identical treatment. Muslim students may need space for Friday prayers, while Hindu students may require arrangements connected with Nyepi or other observances. Christian, Buddhist, Jewish and Indigenous students may also need appropriate facilities or scheduling flexibility. A neutral policy can accommodate these needs by using objective criteria such as capacity, noise, safety, supervision and booking order.

This issue has a clear Australian parallel. Under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Religious Discrimination Act 2022, universities and student organisations must consider whether a rule places people at an unjustifiable disadvantage because of religion or ethnicity. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution is narrower than many assume, since it constrains the Commonwealth rather than creating a general constitutional religious-freedom right against every university. State and territory anti-discrimination laws, university statutes and internal policies therefore carry much of the practical weight.

Neutrality, safety and the limits of permission

A lawful facility policy should be religiously neutral in its wording and operation. It might require advance booking, prohibit open flames, cap attendance, protect emergency exits and prevent amplified sound during examinations. Those conditions can apply to a prayer meeting, political gathering, commercial event or student concert. Problems arise when “neutrality” is used as a cover for selectively targeting minority worship.

The university also has a responsibility to prevent intimidation and preserve voluntary participation. A religious event cannot become a condition of receiving benefits, joining a society or remaining in good standing. Students must be free to attend, decline, leave or criticise an event without retaliation. Rules should address proselytisation that becomes coercive, hate speech, threats and exclusionary conduct, while preserving ordinary religious expression and respectful disagreement.

Australian campuses illustrate why detailed rules are preferable to broad bans. A prayer room near a busy student centre in Melbourne may require quiet-use rules, while a large Ramadan gathering in Sydney may need crowd management and alternative access routes. A Welcome to Country or smoking ceremony also requires respect for cultural protocol and safety planning. The legal principle is the same: manage foreseeable impacts without treating a belief community as inherently disruptive.

Procedural fairness and remedies

Students should be able to understand how a facility decision was made. A sound policy explains eligibility, booking deadlines, reasons for refusal, review mechanisms and emergency restrictions. Decisions should be made by authorised officers, recorded in writing and based on evidence rather than rumours about a group. Where refusal is necessary, the university should consider alternatives, such as another room, a different time or a smaller format.

Procedural fairness is particularly important where access is denied because of alleged extremism, security concerns or controversy surrounding a speaker. Students should receive enough information to respond, subject to genuine safety limits. An internal appeal, student representative review or independent complaints pathway can prevent the concentration of unreviewable power in one office.

Advocacy has historically influenced legal reform by turning individual grievances into public questions about accountability. The relationship between organised student advocacy and legal change is explored in Indonesia’s anti-corruption laws. The same democratic function applies to campus facility disputes: transparent complaints and principled representation can improve policy for everyone, not only for the group that first experienced exclusion.

Inclusion, public confidence and comparative practice

A university policy should recognise that religious liberty is connected to equal participation in education. If students cannot observe important practices without missing classes, facing ridicule or travelling far from campus, formal access may exist only on paper. Practical accommodation can involve timetable awareness, private rooms, storage rules, washing facilities and clear arrangements for religious clothing or dietary needs.

Religious literacy also supports lawful administration. Staff who understand the difference between worship, cultural celebration, political advocacy and coercive conduct are less likely to rely on stereotypes. Educational approaches that address antisemitism through historical memory and prevention offer a useful reminder that inclusion requires active learning, as shown by memory-based prevention. This is relevant in Australia’s international education market, where universities compete for students from many faith and cultural backgrounds and their treatment of minority communities affects institutional trust.

The strongest policy combines freedom with workable administration. It provides equal access, uses objective safety standards, protects students from coercion and discrimination, and gives affected people a genuine avenue of review. For universities in Yogyakarta and Australia alike, the governing question is not whether religion belongs on campus. It is whether public educational space is managed lawfully, fairly and with respect for every student’s dignity.

Students should remember that access to campus facilities is neither an automatic licence to disrupt others nor a favour granted by administrators. It is a legal and institutional question governed by equality, religious freedom, safety, proportionality and fair procedure. Properly applied, those principles allow universities to protect shared spaces while ensuring that religious identity does not become a reason for exclusion.