Are My Tuition Fees For Enlightenment or Indoctrination?

Written By Thomas Gregory, Posted on April 24, 2025

How Academia Uses Tariff Dispute for Ideological Conformity

It has not been very long since Donald Trump finally followed through on the implementation of the tariffs he had been promising since late November. From the moment he made his intentions regarding trade with Canada clear, he became even more of a public enemy in the eyes of Canada’s legacy media than he already was. This is significant, given that for the last decade he has already been the all-encompassing symbol for everything they hate, fear, and seek to contradict. Even though it seemed as though the Canadian media could not hate him more than they already did, they’ve somehow found a way to.

Ominous headlines are now more prevalent in Canada than at any time since the COVID-19 pandemic. Just like during the pandemic, Canadians are regularly making false appeals to authority. While I’m not on side with Trump furthering protectionism, the fear on display within Canadian media is harmful in its own right. It has motivated both major federal parties to promise retaliatory tariffs—tariffs they have acknowledged will further damage the Canadian economy. The only justification is the unproven assumption that Canadian tariffs will encourage him to lift his.

This is both parties’ position not because they genuinely believe it to be the best way forward, but because our media has created an opportunity to capitalize on people’s emotions, turning the central question of the election into “who will take a harder stance against Trump?” This is problematic, as it completely ignores the possibility that a more diplomatic approach—such as attempting to renegotiate the trade deal he dislikes a year early—could be a wiser strategy. Even if it’s not, it is certainly a debate that should be happening, but isn’t. This is due to the media creating a political environment in which there’s no viable choice for a politician other than to adopt this position, lest they be accused of selling out to the United States and subsequently lose the election.

While it is not surprising to see people uncritically mirror what they see on the news, you would expect some degree of nuance or debate to appear when the subject is raised on Canadian university campuses. However, this has not been the case. Academia has simply acted as an additional societal layer seeking to validate the narratives we see in our media, and this has exacerbated neuroticism in young people. In recent weeks, when classes begin by discussing current events, one will regularly hear tenured professors mimic views associated with the media’s fantasy.

This includes statements such as:
“Trump is attacking Canada for no reason”;
“These tariffs will mean total economic collapse”;
“Trump intends on militarily invading Canada”;
“The only way to resolve this conflict is through retaliatory tariffs”;
—as well as a host of other alarmist sentiments.

Hearing this, one might say to themselves, “That may be bad, but it’s just their opinion, and I’m sure they’re challenged on it regularly in class.” While I wish that were true, and would largely be unbothered by these weak arguments if they were being challenged, unfortunately, they aren’t. Most students mistakenly assume that their sociology or architecture professor knows more about geopolitics than they do and therefore accept what they are told—failing to recognize the logical fallacy. Even people I know personally, who disagree with these professorial opinions laundered as fact, are unwilling to speak up in class out of fear—fear of reprisal from their peers as well as the standing professor.

The idea of countering ideas with open dialogue is proving too controversial for the university lecture hall. It’s been replaced by ideological purism and conformity. Students fear being hated by their peers the way the Hitler Youth hated those who rejected indoctrination. This indoctrination has become an ideological firewall, making it feel futile to challenge ideas. Conformity to a professor’s worldview is perceived as the best method for achieving good grades, whereas disagreement subjects students to the wrath of professorial bias. Whether that fear is real or imagined is not the point—it’s the chilling effect imposed on students by professors and peers who are incapable of hearing views other than their own collectivist ideas echoed. Those who conform can often be heard mirroring the corporate media narrative, and thus the fear-mongering continues.

This can also be seen in what some universities lesson structures refer to as “labs” and others as “tutorials.” For those unaware, these are typically one-hour sessions specifically designed to engage students in discussion, where the frequency and quality of contributions determine one’s mark. Given that this structure requires participation for a decent grade, one might expect more open dialogue than in regular lectures. However, this is not the case. The same issues persist, and if anything, tutorials often lead to _less_ open dialogue due to the way class exercises are structured.

Allow me to explain a particular class exercise used to discuss Canadian–U.S. relations. Students were split into three groups: Canada, Mexico, and the United States. I watched the group representing the U.S. misrepresent the country’s position, saying: “I am tariffing Canada because I want it to be the fifty-first state.” Despite my utter shock, I couldn’t correct this inaccurate representation because my role was to represent Canada. As a result, any possibility of a constructive conversation on the issue was destroyed.

Ryerson University (now TMU) spent millions in taxpayer funding on LED lights for one of its campus buildings, seemingly to broadcast the rainbow flag.

Ultimately, what this means is that the dominant narrative is set by the media, reinforced by professors and TAs, and accepted by a majority of students—regardless of how ridiculous the claim may be. “If no one is challenging it, and professors are saying it, it must be true.” Intellectually honest academic discourse appears to no longer exist and has been replaced by an echo chamber based on our legacy media. This media serves to indoctrinate those who don’t know any better. This has been the case for years and is especially clear when discussing complex issues like Canadian–U.S. relations. Complex perspectives are usually presented as simplistic straw men, and no debate on the merit of the fallacious points occurs. Instead, professors make it clear what the “right” opinion is and what the “wrong” opinion is.

As many of us on campus are learning, academic discourse has been dead for a very long time, and the ideological interpretation of tariffs is the latest abhorrent example of this phenomenon. With one sly comment, Donald Trump has inadvertently exposed academia as an extension of the collectivist corporate media. It is shameful. I paid my tuition to learn about ideas and challenge them in civil, open, non-ideological debate. I did not pay my tuition to be spoon-fed ideological extremism and to be publicly shamed when I point out obvious flaws in what university students are being brainwashed to think.

Thomas Gregory

History & Political Science — TMU Independent political journalist; Former Candidate New Blue Party of Ontario