Overdoor, France, ca. 1825; | Smithsonian Design Museum
Education communities have significant food safety responsibilities. Risk gets pushed around global food service counterparties; a drama in itself and one that requires coverage in a separate blog post.*
Since 2013 we have been following the development of food safety standards; among them ANSI/NSF 2: Food Equipment one of a constellation of NSF food safety titles whose provisions cover bakery, cafeteria, kitchen, and pantry units and other food handling and processing equipment such as tables and components, counters, hoods, shelves, and sinks. The purpose of this Standard is to establish minimum food protection and sanitation requirements for the materials, design, fabrication, construction, and performance of food handling and processing equipment.
It is a relatively stable standard; developed to support conformance revenue for products. A new landing page seems to have emerged in recent months:
Manufacturers are required to meet the NEC and CEC electrical codes to have their food equipment sold and used in the United States and Canada. Watch our video for more details. pic.twitter.com/d0vUf4zUl2
Not trivial agendas with concepts that cut across several disciplines involving product manufacture, installation, operation and maintenance. We find a very strong influence of organizations such as Aramark and Sodexo. More on that in a separate post.
This committee – along with several other joint committees –meets frequently online. If you wish to participate, and receive access to documents that explain the scope and scale of NSF food safety standards, please contact Allan Rose, (734) 827-3817, arose@nsf.org. NSF International welcomes guests/observers to nearly all of its standards-setting technical committees. We expect another online meeting hosted by this committee any day now.
Keep in mind that all NSF International titles are on the standing agenda of our Nourriture (Food) colloquia; open to everyone. See our CALENDAR for the next meeting.
Are they hedge funds with a side hustle in teaching, research and building construction? Are they tricked out memorial gardens for philanthropists? In either case leaders of educational settlements are expected to act in the best interests of both their institution and their donors, and to maintain high standards of transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct when accepting charitable gifts.
University endowments are comprised of money or other financial assets that are donated to academic institutions. Charitable donations are the primary source of funds for endowments. Endowment funds support the teaching, research, and public service missions of colleges and universities.
In the case of endowment funds for academic institutions, the income generated is intended to finance a portion of the operating or capital requirements of the institution. In addition to a general university endowment fund, institutions may also maintain a number of restricted endowments that are intended to fund specific areas within the institution, including professorships, scholarships, and fellowships.
The largest philanthropic gift ever given to a United States college or university is the donation of $9.6 billion made by MacKenzie Scott to various organizations, including several universities, in 2020. Scott, the ex-wife of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, made the donation as part of her commitment to give away the majority of her wealth to charitable causes. The universities that received donations from Scott include historically black colleges and universities, community colleges, and research universities such as the University of California, San Diego, and Johns Hopkins University. The donation was considered significant not only for its size but also for its focus on supporting organizations that serve underrepresented and marginalized communities.
There are several standards and best practices that are generally followed by universities and colleges when accepting charitable gifts. These standards are designed to ensure that the gift is used effectively and that the interests of both the donor and the institution are protected. Some of the key standards include:
Transparency and accountability: Universities and colleges are expected to be transparent about how gifts are used and to provide regular reports to donors on the impact of their gifts.
Due diligence: Universities and colleges are expected to conduct due diligence on potential donors to ensure that their gifts do not create conflicts of interest or ethical concerns.
Gift acceptance policies: Many universities and colleges have established gift acceptance policies that outline the types of gifts that will be accepted and the procedures for accepting them.
Donor recognition: Universities and colleges are expected to recognize donors in an appropriate and meaningful way, while avoiding actions that could be seen as an endorsement of the donor’s business or political interests.
Ethical fundraising: Universities and colleges are expected to follow ethical fundraising practices, including avoiding pressure tactics or misleading information, and ensuring that donors are aware of any tax implications of their gifts.
Overall, universities and colleges are expected to act in the best interests of both their institution and their donors, and to maintain high standards of transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct when accepting charitable gifts.
Today at the usual hour we explore the literature, standards and codes that inform the design, construction, safety and sustainability of interior ceiling structures.
Educational classroom ceilings are shaped less by bold engineering and more by decades of accumulated institutional experience and unwritten tradition. Acoustics dominate: generations of teachers complained about echo and poor speech intelligibility, so by the 1950s–60s, suspended acoustic tile systems on metal grids became the default.
Case histories—fire tragedies like Our Lady of the Angels (1958) and later the Station nightclub fire—pushed strict flame-spread ratings, reinforcing mineral-fiber tiles and sprayed fireproofing on structure. Height settled around 9–10 ft (2.7–3 m) because pre-1970s HVAC systems needed plenum space above grids, and higher ceilings raised heating costs during the 1973 oil crisis; those budget lessons stuck.
Daylight and glare studies from the 1990s onward encouraged flat, matte white surfaces to diffuse light without hot spots. Modern codes merely codify what thousands of past classrooms already “already worked”: quiet, fire-safe, affordable, and bright enough. Tradition, filtered through decades of trial, error, and budget sign-offs, quietly dictates the design more than any single regulation.
Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
Donegan Acoustics | Ireland
In the United States, where the International Building Code (IBC) or its variants sets the standard, ceiling heights for habitable spaces and corridors—this includes most square footage in educational facilities—can be no lower than 7 feet 6 inches (2.29 m). Basements and non-habitable spaces may be as low as 7 feet 0 inches.
There is no single nationwide building code that directly mandates a specific maximum or minimum height for an auditorium, however. The allowable height of an auditorium (measured as floor-to-ceiling height or story height) is determined by a combination of the adopted model building code and fire code in that jurisdiction, along with the building’s occupancy classification, construction type, sprinkler protection, and sometimes egress/accessible means of egress requirements.
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwBpic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T
