The excellent Paul Waugh has a spot-on post about the anger of Cambridge dons over the notion tbat their library might get a sponsor:

Gill Evans, emeritus professor of
medieval theology and intellectual history, said:

“At this rate, one might set off for the University Library one morning to
find it turned into a branch of Tesco..What if the library was to be sponsored by Bill Gates,
or a firm of the calibre of Enron, or indeed Tesco? It could happen.”

Ms Evans' objection seems to stem
from a snobbish dislike of Tesco that is currently de rigeur among many
of the chattering classes.

I'm not sure what is so
distinctively odious about a retailer attaching its name to an
institution. Americans don't have a problem with Carnegie Hall (steel
money) or the Rockefeller Center (oil money), but it appears some in
Cambridge would have a problem with supermarket money.

But more
importantly, the attack on Tesco appears to be part of a wider argument
you hear - often among those on the left - that Sir Terry Leahy is
somehow the devil incarnate because it gives the masses (gasps of
horror) cheap food and provides shoppers with what they want.

Yet
there is surely a case for defending a company that is not only one of
our best managed and most profitable (£3bn this year), but also most
committed to doing public good.

A Cabinet minister pointed out to
me recently his dismay that few people realised that firms like Tesco
were among the pioneers who are taking on thousands of long-term
unemployed, training them and then giving them jobs in their
communities. Contrary to its rapacious image, Tesco takes on some of
the hard core of benefit claimants shunned by most employers. They also
open up stores in run-down areas others wouldn't touch.