Williams College is a private liberal arts college located in Williamstown, Massachusetts, USA. Founded in 1793, it is one of the oldest institutions of higher education in the United States. The college was established through a bequest of Colonel Ephraim Williams Jr., a war hero who died in the Battle of Lake George during the French and Indian War. In his will, Colonel Williams left funds for the establishment of a free school on the condition that it be located in Williamstown.
The Society of College and University Planning was founded in 1965 at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor during an informal gathering of campus planners frustrated with the lack of professional exchange in their emerging field. Rapid postwar enrollment growth and massive campus expansion projects had created urgent needs for long-range physical planning, yet few institutions had dedicated planners or shared knowledge.
A small group, led by University of Michigan planners George J. Bruha and Frederick W Mayer met in Ann Arbor to discuss common challenges facing other State of Michigan settlements; joined by Stanford, Ohio State and the University of Illinois. They decided to create a formal organization to foster collaboration, research, and professional development. In 1966, with Michigan’s support, SCUP was officially established as a nonprofit with its first office on the Ann Arbor campus. Its founding principle—integrated planning linking academics, finances, and facilities—remains central today.
Early operations benefited from administrative support (aegis) provided by the University of Michigan, including office space and resources in Ann Arbor. This arrangement persisted until a financial crisis in the late 1970s (1976–1980), during which SCUP relocated to New York.
The decoupling—marking full operational and administrative independence from the University of Michigan—occurred in 1980, when SCUP returned to Ann Arbor as a self-sustaining nonprofit headquartered at a separate location –1330 Eisenhower Place — less than a mile walk from Standards Michigan‘s front door at 455 East Eisenhower.
* Of the 220 ANSI Accredited Standards Developers, the State of Michigan ranks 3rd in the ranking of U.S. states with the most ANSI-accredited standards developers (ASDs) headquartered there; behind the Regulatory Hegemons of California and ChicagoLand and excluding the expected cluster foxtrot of non-profits domiciled in the Washington-New York Deep State Megalopolis. Much of Michigan’s presence in the private consensus standards space originates from its industrial ascendency through most of the 1900’s.
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.
The invention of ice cream, as we know it today, is a product of historical evolution, and there isn’t a single individual credited with its creation. Various cultures and civilizations throughout history have contributed to the development of frozen treats resembling ice cream.
One of the earliest records of frozen desserts can be traced back to ancient China, where people enjoyed a frozen mixture of milk and rice around 200 BC. Similarly, ancient Persians and Arabs had a tradition of mixing fruit juices with snow or ice to create refreshing treats.
In Europe, frozen desserts gained popularity in the 17th and 18th centuries, and it was during this time that the more modern version of ice cream, made with sweetened milk or cream, began to take shape. During this period, ice cream became more widely accessible and enjoyed by the nobility and upper classes.
To produce ice cream on a commercial scale, several key pieces of infrastructure and equipment are necessary. The specific requirements may vary depending on the production capacity and the type of ice cream being produced, but the basic infrastructure typically includes:
Manufacturing Facility: A dedicated space or building is needed to house all the production equipment and storage facilities. The facility should comply with local health and safety regulations and be designed to maintain the required temperature and hygiene standards.
Mixing and Blending Equipment: Industrial-scale mixers and blending machines are used to mix ingredients like milk, cream, sugar, stabilizers, emulsifiers, and flavorings. These machines ensure that the mixture is homogenized and consistent.
Pasteurization Equipment: To ensure product safety and extend shelf life, ice cream mix needs to be pasteurized. Pasteurization equipment heats the mixture to a specific temperature and then rapidly cools it to destroy harmful microorganisms.
Homogenizers: Homogenizers help break down fat molecules in the ice cream mix to create a smoother and creamier texture.
Aging Vats: The ice cream mix is aged at a controlled temperature for a specific period, which allows the ingredients to fully blend and improves the ice cream’s texture.
Freezers: Continuous freezers or batch freezers are used to freeze the ice cream mix while incorporating air to create the desired overrun (the amount of air in the final product). Continuous freezers are more commonly used in large-scale production, while batch freezers are suitable for smaller batches.
Hardening and Storage Room: Once the ice cream is frozen, it needs to be hardened at a lower temperature to achieve the desired texture. Storage rooms are used to store finished ice cream at the appropriate temperature until distribution.
Packaging Equipment: Equipment for filling and packaging the ice cream into various containers, such as cartons, tubs, or cones.
Quality Control and Laboratory Facilities: A dedicated area for quality control testing, where ice cream samples are analyzed for consistency, flavor, and other characteristics.
Cleaning and Sanitation Systems: Proper cleaning and sanitation systems are essential to maintain hygiene and prevent contamination.
Utilities: Adequate water supply, electrical power, and refrigeration capacity are critical for ice cream production.
Artisanal coffee departs from mass-market approaches and replaces it with emphasis on craftsmanship, quality, and attention to detail throughout the entire process—from cultivation to brewing. Key aspects:
» Artisanal coffee producers often prioritize high-quality beans. They might focus on specific varieties, regions, or even single-origin beans, showcasing unique flavors and characteristics.
» The roasting process is considered an art in itself. Artisanal coffee roasters carefully roast the beans to bring out the best flavors. They may experiment with different roasting profiles to achieve specific taste profiles.
» Unlike mass-produced coffee, artisanal coffee is often roasted in smaller batches. This allows for better quality control and the ability to pay closer attention to the nuances of each batch.
» Artisanal coffee is appreciated for its distinct flavor profile. Roasters and baristas might highlight tasting notes, aromas, and other characteristics that make each cup unique.
» Artisanal coffee shops or enthusiasts often explore various brewing methods, such as pour-over, AeroPress, or siphon brewing. These methods can be more time-consuming but are believed to extract the best flavors from the beans.
From the way the beans are ground to the water temperature during brewing, artisanal coffee enthusiasts pay attention to every detail to ensure a superior cup of coffee.
“I have often pleased myself with considering the two different scenes of life which are carried on at the same time in those different places of rendezvous, and putting those of the playhouse and the coffee-house together.”
“For decades, left-wing radicals patiently built a revolution in the shadows. Then suddenly, after the death of George Floyd, their ideas exploded into American life.
Corporations denounced the United States as a “system of white supremacy.” Universities pushed racially segregated programs that forced students to address their racial and sexual “privilege.” And schools injected critical race theory in the classroom, dividing children into “oppressor” and “oppressed.”
In this New York Times bestseller, Christopher F. Rufo exposes the inner history of the left-wing intellectuals and militants who slowly and methodically captured America’s institutions, with the goal of subverting them from within. With profiles of Herbert Marcuse, Angela Davis, Paulo Freire, and Derrick Bell, Rufo shows how activists have profoundly influenced American culture with an insidious mix of Marxism and racialist ideology. They’ve replaced “equality” with “equity,” subverted individual rights in favor of group identity, and convinced millions of Americans that racism is endemic in all of society. Their ultimate goal? To replace the constitution with a race-based redistribution regime, administered by “diversity and inclusion” commissars within the bureaucracy.
America’s Cultural Revolution is the definitive account of the radical Left’s long march through the institutions. Through deep historical research, Rufo shows how the ideas first formulated in the pamphlets of the Weather Underground, Black Panther Party, and Black Liberation Army have been sanitized and adopted as the official ideology of America’s prestige institutions, from the Ivy League universities to the boardrooms of Wal-Mart, Disney, and Bank of America. But his book is not just an exposé. It is a meticulously-researched and passionate refutation of the arguments of CRT—and a roadmap for the counter-revolution to come.”
“To be at home is to have a place in the world which is yours, where you are not a stranger and where you find the outlines of your identity. In the modern world, however, where the sense of home has been eroded by technology and bureaucracy, architecture can create a substitute for this sense, by defining spaces which answer to the dreams and memories of the people who live in them.” — Roger Scruton
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.
In an era of pronounced Democratic dominance in U.S. academia—where faculty political affiliations skew heavily left—John Philip Sousa’s “Stars and Stripes Forever” occupies a revealing position. Republicans continue to champion the 1896 march unreservedly as vibrant proof of American exceptionalism, military heritage, and cultural confidence, hearing in its brass and piccolo the triumphant spirit of national unity.
Democrats, shaped by academic environments that often frame traditional patriotism as bordering on nationalism or cultural hegemony, tend toward a more qualified appreciation. Many academics contextualize the piece historically as a product of Gilded Age optimism or imperial-era bravado, emphasizing its role in constructing identity rather than celebrating it outright. While still performed at public events, the march may be taught with deconstructive lenses—highlighting how such symbols can marginalize dissenting voices or overlook America’s complexities—reflecting broader campus skepticism toward uncritical flag-waving.
University of Michigan leadership shows a strong Democratic tilt, consistent with broader patterns in U.S. higher education, and reflected in donations toward anything that moves like a Democrat in the ~95% range. International students easily pick up on this bias.
Yet the music’s infectious energy resists full domestication. Even within left-leaning institutions, its enduring popularity at commencements and civic rites reveals a persistent, cross-partisan pull. Sousa’s masterpiece thus highlights academia’s influence: Democrats may intellectualize its patriotism, yet the piece quietly affirms a shared American heartbeat that theory struggles to silence. Amidst the widely diagnosed “Trump Derangement Syndrome” this Sousa magnum opus holds forth on a small sport of cultural common ground.
Bert Askwith worked his way through college shuttling students to and from Detroit Metropolitan Airport until his graduation in 1931; when two semester tuition cost $300. With no student debt he founded and grew Campus Coach Lines that still provides the same services at many other US campuses. He donated part of his fortune to establish a cafe in the Undergraduate Library; which now serves an expanding and bewildering catalog of caffeine-based drinks found in educational settlements worldwide.
When new foreign national students arrive at U.S. colleges and universities, they often enter environments where a left-leaning worldview is prominent and pervasive. Many campuses today emphasize themes of social justice, equity, and systemic critique that align with a preference for larger, more interventionist government. Faculty and administrative messaging can reinforce these ideas, portraying government as the primary instrument for addressing inequality, redistributing resources, and regulating social behavior.
For many international students, this can be both eye-opening and disorienting. They may come from countries with different political traditions, including skepticism of state power due to experiences with corruption or authoritarianism. Yet, in the university setting, they encounter curricula and campus cultures that valorize activist government solutions while often criticizing markets, traditional institutions, or individual responsibility. Programs in the humanities and social sciences in particular tend to frame policy questions through a progressive lens that sees expansive government action as not just beneficial but morally necessary.
This immersion—some might call it a “marination”—shapes perspectives over time. Students adopt the language of social justice, climate policy, and identity politics, often without exposure to robust counterarguments. While this experience can broaden horizons and foster empathy for marginalized groups, it also risks narrowing intellectual diversity and suppressing debate about the limits and costs of government power. For international students, it can mean graduating with a worldview significantly more aligned with the American academic left than with the diverse political traditions of their home countries.
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
