Thinking for yourself is the opposite of submitting to the will of another person. Whether pressuring people to think for themselves will not lead to the end of them becoming successful independent thinkers is a whole another matter, and whether as a result of this they will just submit to the will of another person.
It is also irrelevant if the whole thing about getting people to think for themselves is just a cover up for having a small group of people where they could discuss philosophy, as that is a matter of BlueWing's personal intentions, irrelevant to the idea proposed. An important question to ask is, will this method lead to an intellectual aristocracy? If it succeeds in inspiring people to think for themselves, no. However, there will be an aristocracy in the regard that the people who can reason most clearly will have most power. At first, there will be what one may call an aristocracy. However, as we go further in getting people to think for themselves, the gap between the 'intellectual' and the 'non-intellectual' should diminish.
In any case, people will not submit to the will of another person. We will judge whether they think for themselves or not, not based on the final opinions they hold. But by their reasoning process. Having the 'right' opinions can be achieved through conformity, but knowing how to derive them, does not.
To further the point, it does not matter that people have the 'right' opinions, as we can't truly know what is right conclusively on many issues. However, we can know if their reasoning contains errors. In short, they are free to hold any view they want to have, as long as it is obviously not incoherent.