The idea that a university should be autonomous in its management so that academic standards can be safeguarded in a context which promotes freedom of thought and expression is a principle that on paper "everyone" agrees with. In actual fact, it remains subject to a good number of reservations and limitations that are not always publicly acknowledged.
Above all, financing is a tool by which academic autonomy can be held in check, since it will always remain conditioned by how a university's operations are being funded. This has never been so evident as right now, with what's happening in the US. Over the last decades, even the mightiest private universities have gotten used to rely on governmental grants to finance massive research projects. Now the federal administration is halting much of this financing to universities who are failing, or are refusing, to implement Trump's anti-"woke" policies against rules they apply to sustain ethnic, racial and sexual diversity and similar approaches. Another reason according to Trump is that they're being soft on anti-semitism...
In the face of the government offensive, the autonomy of many universities has been strongly eroded.
***
BAN ON EXTREMISM?
In Germany, the far right party, the AfD, was declared an extremist formation right through so that security surveillance will need to be maintained over its operations. This judgement was reached by the state organizaiton which under German law oversees internal security and is tasked with protecting the society from Nazism.
However the AfD now enjoys the support of almost thirty percent of the electorate which is ready to vote for it in democratic elections. To put some kind of control over it can appear to be an anti-democratic and unjust manoeuvre. US vice President Vance who's been showing a particular interest in European democracy (!) hasn't shied away from making such an observation. The AfD denies that it is inspired by Nazism although in the past, some of its constituent organizations were similarly sanctioned and the party itself had to censure them.
Even so, it's inevitable that there will arise an institutional disquiet in a democracy when somehow, it seems like a party which has attained widespread popular backing is being put under shackles.
***
ONCE AGAIN RE. ABORTION
We've been told that the importation of drugs which trigger abortion has increased these last years. As no abortion services exist which can be provided legally, women seeking an abortion are having to rely on chemical means purchased "at a distance". One doubts whether in the majority of cases, the health and welfare of the women involved is being adequately safeguarded. One can only imagine that in circumstances when complications arise, arrangements are being found by which the reality of what has been going on is fudged.
Such a state of affairs confirms how on the abortion issue, our society has been driven into an impasse. On the one hand, we listen to sermons about how abortion should stay banned in order to guarantee the sanctity of life. On the other hand, we get to know how in practice, the implementation of this "holy" policy is unnecessarily putting the lives of women at risk, and in order for them to get treatment, fictitious reasons have to be devised for why it's being given.