Philanthropy — Brighter World
Tufts’ comprehensive campaign raised more than $1.5 billion from over 132,000 donors, supporting financial aid, research and campus living and learning spaces. Tufts Giving / Brighter World
Capital — Capital Projects
Current and recent investments in housing, laboratories, engineering facilities, renovations and other physical assets across the university. Tufts Capital Projects
Essential Works — Operations Division
Tufts describes Operations as directing the university’s “essential functions and services” across four campuses, including physical plant, construction, safety, dining, grounds and waste. Tufts Operations Division
The word “fecund” comes from the Latin word “fecundus,” which means fertile or fruitful. Historically, it has been used to describe land, animals, or people that are capable of producing abundant offspring or vegetation.
The term conveys a sense of richness and productivity, often associated with fertility and the ability to generate new life or growth. In a broader sense, it can also be applied metaphorically to describe creative or intellectual productivity.
Today we break down the literature for exterior and interior pathways in education communities. We limit the term “pathway” to refer to human pathways (as in egress and ingress paths); not wiring or piping pathways. Maximum distance of travel from within a building and along an egress path toward safety is a core topic in building safety literature. Starting 2023 we will break down coverage of subject catalogs and bibliographies:
Pathways 100: Survey of all titles for both the exterior and interior environments
Pathways 200: Review of codes, standards and guidelines for building interiors
Pathways 300: Review of codes, standards and guidelines campus environment outside the buildings; all seasons
Pathways 500: Review of noteworthy litigation. Campus pathways are rich in possibilities for legal actions so we will refresh our understanding of the landmark decisions.
IFC §909.21.6 Proposal FS118-21 Pressurization systems for elevator pathways (now being discussed during the ICC Group A Committee Action Hearings in September)
American Society of Civil Engineers (roads, sidewalks)
We might venture onto the minefield of sensitivities about signage: too much, too many, too big, too small? There are signs everywhere in academia.
Many titles in the foregoing list are inspired by legal requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act administered by the US Department of Justice
As usual, we’ll only have time to identify the titles and concepts in motion and set up a separate markup session. Open to everyone; use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
“The Via Appia: A Case Study in the Political Geography of Imperialism” Hannah Friedman. This article, published in the Journal of Historical Geography in 2011, examines the Appian Way as a product of Roman imperialism and a reflection of Roman attitudes toward the landscape and its inhabitants. The author draws on both textual and archaeological evidence to explore the road’s impact on the regions it passed through.
“The Appian Way: The Road that Built the Roman Empire” by Richard Talbert – Cambridge University Press 2012. A a comprehensive study of the Appian Way and its significance to the Roman Empire. The author draws on a wide range of archaeological and historical evidence to explore the road’s construction, use, and legacy.
Our first impression of a community is its visual environment, which is reflected from the pretty integration of the built and natural forms. Visual pollution is defined as the whole of irregular formations that are unattractive and affects people’s ability to enjoy or appreciate the view and vista. Anything that interferes with the “pretty scenes” and other distortion may become a cause of visual pollution. With the rapid increase of population world widebuilding sector became the major source of visual pollution especially in the city center.
Join us today when we sweep through the surprisingly large catalog of titles devoted to signage. We will borrow from our previous coverage of pathway standards. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
International students enrolling in U.S. colleges encounter Academic English — the formal register of lectures, textbooks, papers, and discussions. This variety often embeds assumptions that diverge sharply from the American Founding’s emphasis on limited government, individual liberty, natural rights, and skepticism of centralized authority.
The Founders designed a republic of enumerated powers, checks and balances, and federalism to restrain government and protect personal sovereignty. They viewed government as a necessary but dangerous servant. Deference was owed primarily to law and reason, not to elites or the state.
Modern university discourse, however, frequently frames issues through lenses that normalize expansive government. Terms like “equity,” “systemic oppression,” “social justice,” “sustainability,” and “public good” recur in required writing, readings, and class analysis. These presuppose that societal problems demand coordinated state or institutional intervention and expert guidance.
International students, often writing in a second language, must master not only grammar but also these rhetorical conventions to succeed. Essays commonly reward framing arguments around collective victimhood, institutional reform, or government solutions, while skepticism of authority or defense of limited government can be marked down.
This creates subtle acculturation. Students absorb a version of English that subtly legitimizes big government as moral progress — contrasting the Founding’s core warning: unchecked power threatens liberty. Proficiency thus includes ideological fluency in progressive norms dominant in humanities and social sciences.
In short, many international graduates internalize habits of thought prioritizing collective authority and equity over the Founders’ individualism and restraint — shaping future global elites away from the Republic’s original limited-government ethos.
Noteworthy court cases involving signage on colleges and universities:
Widmar v. Vincent (1981): In this Supreme Court case, the court held that public universities cannot discriminate against student groups based on their religious or political beliefs, including the display of signs or other expressive activities.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a school district’s ban on wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The court held that students have a First Amendment right to express their views through symbols and signs, as long as it does not disrupt the educational environment.
Healy v. James (1972): In this Supreme Court case, the court held that colleges and universities cannot impose a prior restraint on student speech, including the display of signs, unless there is a clear and present danger of imminent violence or disruption.
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995): In this Supreme Court case, the court held that public universities cannot discriminate against student groups based on their viewpoint, including the display of signs or other expressive activities.
Texas v. Johnson (1989): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a Texas law that prohibited the desecration of the American flag. The court held that flag burning is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment, including on college and university campuses.
Court cases involving municipal signage:
Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to the town of Gilbert, Arizona’s sign code, which regulated the size, location, and duration of signs based on their content. The court held that the sign code was a content-based restriction on speech and therefore subject to strict scrutiny.
City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994): In this Supreme Court case, the court struck down a municipal ordinance that banned the display of signs on residential property, except for signs that fell within specific exemptions. The court held that the ban was an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech.
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a San Diego ordinance that banned off-premises advertising signs while allowing on-premises signs. The court held that the ordinance was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, as it discriminated against certain types of speech.
City of Ladue v. Center for the Study of Responsive Law, Inc. (1980): In this Supreme Court case, the court upheld a municipal ordinance that prohibited the display of signs on public property, but only if the signs were posted for longer than 10 days. The court held that the ordinance was a valid time, place, and manner restriction on speech.
City of Boerne v. Flores (1997): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a municipal sign code that regulated the size, location, and content of signs in the city. The court held that the sign code violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as it burdened the exercise of religion without a compelling government interest.
Abstract: Ballot marking devices (BMDs) allow voters to select candidates on a computer kiosk, which prints a paper ballot that the voter can review before inserting it into a scanner to be tabulated. Unlike paperless voting machines, BMDs provide voters an opportunity to verify an auditable physical record of their choices, and a growing number of U.S. jurisdictions are adopting them for all voters. However, the security of BMDs depends on how reliably voters notice and correct any adversarially induced errors on their printed ballots. In order to measure voters’ error detection abilities, we conducted a large study (N = 241) in a realistic polling place setting using real voting machines that we modified to introduce an error into each printout. Without intervention, only 40% of participants reviewed their printed ballots at all, and only 6.6% told a poll worker something was wrong. We also find that carefully designed interventions can improve verification performance. Verbally instructing voters to review the printouts and providing a written slate of candidates for whom to vote both significantly increased review and reporting rates-although the improvements may not be large enough to provide strong security in close elections, especially when BMDs are used by all voters. Based on these findings, we make several evidence-based recommendations to help better defend BMD-based elections.
IEEE provides this article for public use without charge.
Today is an “off-year” federal election but there are many appeals to voters for more money to build new, or expand or maintain educational settlements. We may have to pick through a few bond offerings. We maintain an ongoing concern for the security of polling places; many which are located in schools, colleges and universities.
In the United States, polling places can be located in a variety of public and private facilities, not just in public schools. While public schools are commonly used as polling places due to their widespread distribution and accessibility, they are not necessarily the largest proportion of polling places nationwide. The specific locations of polling places can vary by jurisdiction and are determined by local election officials. Other common polling place locations include community centers, churches, libraries, government buildings, and private residences.
The selection of polling places is based on factors like accessibility, convenience, and the need to accommodate a specific number of voters within a given precinct or district. The goal is to ensure that voters have reasonable access to cast their ballots on election day. The use of public schools as polling places is widespread but not universal, and the distribution of polling places across various types of facilities can vary from one region to another.
The political party that claims that “democracy is at stake” today’s election is the same political party that seeks to federalize state election laws, pack the Supreme Court, remove the Electoral College, remove US national borders and abolish voter identification will be voting in today’s off-year elections. In other words: it wants to abolish democracy. Its partisans have long since metastasized in education communities where polling places for students, faculty, staff and nearby residents are hosted.
Join us in post-irony America today when we focus only on the safety and environmental condition of these polling places. Where there is closer agreement. Catalogs, titles, chapters, sections and passages that inform best practice on this topic:
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.
How much do students know about the people whose accumulated wealth created the beautiful places in which they study? Do they appreciate the irony that institutions whose prevailing politics (a 132:1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans) often differ from those of their benefactors continue to flourish through the generosity of earlier generations?
@WilliamsEphsFB has four sets of brothers on the team this season! That’s 10.8% of the roster. And the most in the NESCAC. We met up with the siblings to see how well they each know their bro—and who’s the family favorite. https://t.co/NjR0uQT1Z0
As the adage goes: “The cure for high prices, is high prices”. Today–ahead of the August primary elections in the United States (when bond referenda appear on ballots — we explore fiscal runaway with particular interest in the instruments that finance construction of the real assets. We recap what we have been doing for 30-odd years placing downward pressure on life-cycle cost.
Perspective:
The largest school bond referendum on ballots in November 2025 is the $1.4 billion package for Richardson Independent School District (ISD) in Texas.
University of Michigan’s 2025 $2 billion general revenue bonds
New York University’s 2025 $2.18 billion bonds through the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
The largest school bond referendum on ballots in November 2024 was Measure US for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) in California, totaling $9 billion.
In the November 2022 elections, a significant number of school bond referenda were presented to voters across the United States. For example, in Wisconsin alone, there were 57 successful capital referenda amounting to nearly $2.1 billion in authorized debt (Wisconsin Policy Forum)
In Texas, Central Texas schools had a total of $4.24 billion in bonds on the ballot, covering various propositions for school facilities, technology improvements, and athletic facilities (Fox 7 Austin)
In California and Arkansas, bond measures totaling $74 million — including school choice — were aimed at addressing school facility improvements (The74Million)
Voters in 16 North Carolina counties approved bond issues totaling $4.27 billion, with $3.08 billion dedicated to K-12 public school construction and improvements (EducationNC)
“The cure for high prices, is high prices” — They say.
Today we explore fiscal runaway in the US education “industry” with particular interest in the financing instruments for building the real assets that are the beating heart of culture in neighborhoods, cities, counties and states. We steer clear of social and political issues. The marketing of these projects — and how the loans are paid off — provides insight into the costs and benefits of this $100+ billion industry; the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States.
We cannot do much to stop the hyperbolically rising cost of administrative functionaries but we can force the incumbents we describe in our ABOUT to work a little harder to reduce un-used (or un-useable) space and reduce maintenance cost. Sometimes simple questions result in obvious answers that result in significant savings.
More recently hybrid teaching and learning space, owing the the circumstances of the pandemic, opens new possibilities for placing downward pressure on cost.
Every school building begins twice: first in the bond market, and later on the construction site. After Architect-Engineers and Building Construction Contractors (many of whom finance election advocacy enterprises) the following organizations are involved in placing a bond on the open market:
School Districts: Individual school districts issue bonds to fund construction or renovation of school facilities, purchase equipment, or cover other educational expenses. Each school district is responsible for managing its own bond issuances.
Colleges and Universities: Higher education institutions, such as universities and colleges, issue bonds to finance campus expansions, construction of new academic buildings, dormitories, research facilities, and other capital projects.
State-Level Agencies: Many states have agencies responsible for overseeing and coordinating bond issuances for schools and universities. These agencies may facilitate bond sales, help ensure compliance with state regulations, and provide financial assistance to educational institutions.
Municipal Finance Authorities: Municipal finance authorities at the state or local level often play a role in facilitating bond transactions for educational entities. They may act as intermediaries in the bond issuance process.
Investment Banks and Underwriters: Investment banks and underwriters assist educational institutions in structuring and selling their bonds to investors. They help determine bond terms, market the bonds, and manage the offering.
Bond Counsel: Bond counsel, typically law firms, provide legal advice to educational institutions on bond issuances. They help ensure that the bond issuance complies with all legal requirements and regulations.
Rating Agencies: Rating agencies, such as Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch Ratings, assess the creditworthiness of the bonds and assign credit ratings. These ratings influence the interest rates at which the bonds can be issued.
Investors: Various institutional and individual investors, including mutual funds, pension funds, and individual bond buyers, purchase school and university bonds as part of their investment portfolios.
Financial Advisors: Financial advisory firms provide guidance to educational institutions on bond issuances, helping them make informed financial decisions related to borrowing and debt management.
Regulatory Authorities: Federal and state regulatory authorities, such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and state-specific agencies, oversee and regulate the issuance of bonds to ensure compliance with securities laws and financial regulations.
These organizations collectively contribute to the process of issuing, selling, and managing school and university bonds in the United States, allowing educational institutions to raise the necessary funds for their capital projects and operations. The specific entities involved may vary depending on the size and location of the educational institution and the nature of the bond issuance.
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
