(Photo: CHARLIE CURNIN/The Stanford Daily) on December 13, 2020 I have been following the Hoover Institution’s Human Prosperity Project, an ongoing research effort which compares and contrasts the benefits of capitalism and socialism, since this summer. While catching up on the research papers I missed during fall quarter, I read Victor Davis Hanson’s contribution to the project, “Our Socialist Future?” Coincidentally, the day after reading Hanson’s paper for the Human Prosperity Project, his op-ed in The Daily (“Denigrating Hoover,” Dec. 2, 2020) was published. As a Stanford undergraduate with left-wing economic and political views, I am conflicted about the current iteration of controversy regarding Stanford’s relationship with the Hoover. On the one hand, I have certainly benefited intellectually and politically from the work of fellows at the Hoover by having my views consistently challenged by the positions expressed in their work, such as through the essays, discussions and videos created as part of the Human Prosperity Project. On the other hand, it is precisely knowing that the positions taken in the Hoover fellows’ research will be of a fixed disposition that concerns me, as this stands in contrast with Hanson’s observation that universities should, “encourage inductive reasoning to investigate challenging issues, not to dismiss them when they don’t fit political agendas.” As a think tank producing research of an ideological bent, the Hoover fulfills an important niche in the political landscape by proliferating discussions on political topics. However, this is markedly different from the role of the university to provide the groundwork for these discussions by dispassionately uncovering new information.