Group 1 - The core issue revolves around the accessibility of public universities in China, particularly Tsinghua University and Peking University, which have implemented strict entry restrictions post-pandemic, limiting public access to their campuses [1][3] - The trend of campus closures began before the pandemic, with universities citing safety and order as reasons for restricting access, which has now become a systemic governance preference under the guise of "safety" [2][3] - The management logic of universities often prioritizes internal order over public service, leading to a conflict between public demand for access and rigid entry mechanisms [3][5] Group 2 - International examples, such as MIT and Harvard, showcase a contrasting approach to campus accessibility, where open campuses are seen as vital for fostering innovation and community engagement [4] - The question of "who does the university belong to?" is emphasized, suggesting that as publicly funded institutions, universities should serve the broader society and not just their internal community [5] - The current educational landscape in China, with a gross enrollment rate of 60.8%, indicates that universities are no longer exclusive to elite groups but are essential for lifelong learning, reinforcing the need for open access as a fundamental responsibility of public universities [5]

Core Viewpoint - The practice of airlines locking premium economy seats and charging "seat selection fees" under the guise of "additional services" has sparked public debate, raising concerns about transparency and consumer rights [1][2]. Group 1: Airline Practices - Airlines are locking seats for safety reasons and to balance cabin weight, which is generally accepted by passengers [1]. - However, when the practice of locking seats exceeds safety needs and becomes a means of disguised charging, its rationality is called into question [1]. - The current controversy centers on airlines dynamically adjusting locked seat ratios and obscuring fee standards, which undermines the clarity required by regulations [1][2]. Group 2: Consumer Sentiment - Consumers are naturally wary of hidden fees and have clear expectations regarding service quality, leading to disappointment when basic service contracts are perceived as violated [2]. - The dissatisfaction with "seat selection fees" stems not only from increased costs but also from a breach of trust in the fundamental service agreement [2]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The normalization of "seat locking" as an industry practice threatens the foundational trust necessary for long-term development in the aviation sector [2]. - Some airlines are even including public service seats, such as emergency exit and mother-child seats, in the charging system, which contradicts regulations prioritizing special passenger protections [2]. Group 4: Regulatory Recommendations - It is essential to establish hard limits on the proportion of locked seats to prevent widespread locking practices [2]. - There should be transparency in fee standards to ensure passengers are fully informed before purchasing tickets [2]. - Protection of special seat resources must be enforced, prohibiting the commercialization of seats related to public interest [2]. Group 5: Broader Context - The discussion surrounding seat selection fees reflects a broader societal dialogue about maintaining fairness in commercial transactions, particularly in public service sectors [3]. - Airlines must balance economic benefits with social responsibilities, ensuring that innovations do not compromise public service integrity [3]. - A combination of improved legal regulations, technological empowerment, and innovative oversight is necessary to create a market environment that encourages innovation while ensuring fairness [3].