Talk:Leverhulme Trust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject London (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Organizations (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Apparent lack of neutrality[edit]

This article is not tagged with a warning concerning non-objective content, but parts of it read as if they are straight from a Leverhulme/Unilever press release. For example,

One special element in Viscount Leverhulme's legacy is the request that the Trustees all be drawn from the highest levels within Lever Brothers or now from its descendant Unilever plc. The Trust is therefore led by a group of colleagues with wide but self-consistent experience, with a high level of mutual understanding and respect built up over many years, and with a full recognition of the special qualities and achievement of the founder. The resulting culture for decision-making is free from disciplinary special interest but fully alert to the wide-ranging impact which research and education must make in modern life.

This is absurd. What does it mean to say that a group have 'wide but self-consistent experience'? Whatever the advantages of this kind of arrangement, there are surely serious disadvantages, as well. Most obvious, these include an inevitable homogeneity and failure to represent the population who will be affected by projects. A group consisting solely of the most privileged members of a single multinational corporation stands a much lower chance of appreciating the likely impact of projects on society as a whole because they are in a poorer position to appreciate the impact on members of groups they have little affinity with.

And if a qualification for inclusion in this group is the kind of hero-worship of the founder described, then you have to wonder which world they are living in, because it does not appear to be this one. Or do the founder's 'special qualities' include the exploitation of Congolese people in forced-labour camps? Perhaps this would be better classed as an 'achievement'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.244.158 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)