March 24, 2026
Do you ever hear a statement that sounds false from the start? Sometimes, you may just lack information to support it. Or perhaps the speaker isn’t qualified to make that claim. But this wasn’t the case with the university business professor, who began by declaring he would challenge some common shibboleths—widely held but mistaken beliefs.
He began by sharing how he always asks his students what motivates them in business, and the answer is always profit: business exists to make money. However, he countered that when he shops for vegetables, he expects the store to simply sell vegetables; therefore, the store exists to offer those goods. This made sense, but I also knew that selling continues only if the store makes money. In other words, the owner would not sell vegetables at a loss, would he or she?
At this point, my mind was swirling. I appreciated that people go to stores for merchandise, but I also believed that business owners must make money to sustain their stores. Therefore, I did not feel that the professor had broken any shibboleths for me with this argument.
Later, when the audience sought recommendations for improving the economy, the professor said he might become unpopular by suggesting the abolition of policies with universal application. For example, he questioned the need for universally free kindergarten, asking why people who can afford it should benefit. He advocated means-testing in universal programs.
This argument seemed reasonable until I considered Canada’s own universal programs. We provide basic education free for all, and Canadians are proud of their universal healthcare. The trend in Western countries is to expand free, universal services, not reduce them. For these reasons, I remained unconvinced; whether such policies continue depends on political will and affordability, and the direction seems toward greater universality.
Another example that stirred my mind was the professor’s advice about Canada’s resource sector. He argued Canada should sell more natural resources to create jobs and generate revenue, contrary to the traditional view that resources should be developed domestically for added value. This did not align with my prior knowledge, so I questioned it. Still, as a business professor, his opinion carries weight or at least reflects his perspective.
Reflecting on these experiences, I ask: Is it valuable to react strongly to viewpoints that differ from our own, or should we be more open to considering other perspectives without feeling threatened? What is gained or lost by reacting to challenging ideas? Should we challenge ideas we do not agree with? And should we always do it, verbally and/or in writing?
andrasthehun.ca 