Learning Resources

Abstract: How do you provide a safe space for authentic and inclusive dialogue while addressing a contentious topic in higher education? How do you provide the opportunity and education needed for your campus community to recalibrate their thinking when a response is needed right away? We worked through these issues in the development of an Artificial Intelligence institutional statement and department guidelines at our art and design institution. It wasn’t easy, and we’re still learning, but our case study might provide change management strategies you can use at your own institution.

Abstract: This session will illustrate how Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Human Intelligence (HI) combine to create Collaborative Intelligence (CI), which will transform and disrupt every process and practice it touches. Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU) is building on its track record of preparing students for the future by leveraging CI and a clean sheet design approach to create a revolutionary new instructional model. To harness the power of CI, institutions must reinvent their approach for crafting and executing strategy to create a sense of urgency for change, engage many participants, provide transformation tools, and change culture.

Abstract: How can the campus best support student development in a safe, yet open environment? On an urban campus, these concerns are intensified: There is much more localized activity for students to engage with in their city environment, and many more stakeholders influence how the institution can assert itself in that environment.

In this 2022-2023 SCUP Fellow research report, Joel Pettigrew reflects on how campus edge dynamics and student sense of security play out at several urban campuses. Pettigrew weaves together his operational understanding of campus life with a design understanding of how planners and architects approach the campus to explore how these “two languages” inform student security and well-being, and notes in conclusion that there are many research threads yet to follow.

Abstract: The 2023 SCUP Campus Facilities Inventory (CFI) survey was the third iteration of the survey providing new insights about the current state of campus facilities and how institutions across the country are thinking about the future of campus and facility planning. This webinar will be hosted by Buro Happold Advisory (formerly brightspot strategy) SCUP’s CFI partner, and will review key findings from the survey. The hosts will then engage a panel of survey participants in a discussion about the CFI and campus planning at their institution.

Abstract: With the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events continuing to increase across the country, the need for resilience planning is more critical than ever before.

Numerous campuses across the California State University (CSU) system have direct experience with wildfires, extended drought, floods, extreme heat, public safety power shutoffs, hurricanes, and sea level rise. The CSU is currently working toward increasing resilience in response to catastrophic events through systemwide technical guidance resources on building and infrastructure design and retrofit. These extreme conditions further prompted the need for vulnerability assessments systemwide and coordinated climate resilience planning and investment activities.

Using the activities of CSU climate action and adaptation planning, 2022-2023 SCUP Fellow Tamara Wallace’s SCUP Fellows project sought to achieve three (3) primary objectives:

1. Review planning documents and policies that consider climate resiliency governance versus climate resiliency implementation.


2. Identify key stakeholders to develop a primer for addressing and incorporating campus-community implementation priorities.


3. Raise awareness with the broader higher education planning community to collect feedback and share model practices.

Abstract: With the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events continuing to increase across the country, the need for resilience planning is more critical than ever before.

Numerous campuses across the California State University (CSU) system have direct experience with wildfires, extended drought, floods, extreme heat, public safety power shutoffs, hurricanes, and sea level rise. The CSU is currently working toward increasing resilience in response to catastrophic events through systemwide technical guidance resources on building and infrastructure design and retrofit. These extreme conditions further prompted the need for vulnerability assessments systemwide and coordinated climate resilience planning and investment activities.

Using the activities of CSU climate action and adaptation planning, Wallace’s SCUP Fellows project sought to achieve three (3) primary objectives:

Review planning documents and policies that consider climate resiliency governance versus climate resiliency implementation.
Identify key stakeholders to develop a primer for addressing and incorporating campus-community implementation priorities.
Raise awareness with the broader higher education planning community to collect feedback and share model practices.
Join 2022-2023 SCUP Fellow Tamara Wallace as she shares her findings to help you and your team proactively plan for climate change to mitigate risks, prevent damage, and ensure continued learning from lived experiences.

Abstract: As leaders of colleges and universities continue to analyze changes today and plan their campuses for the future, the knowledge and insight from the SCUP community is critical. The 2023 Campus Facilities Inventory (CFI) report’s valuable facilities benchmarking data will help college and university leaders understand not only what they have now and how it compares, but also how things might change in the future.

The CFI report consists of two sections that provide a holistic picture of today while enabling institutions to crowdsource a vision for the future: current space use data and recent and planned changes to campus facilities.

Data are reported only in aggregate, protecting the privacy of each institution. Reporting focuses on findings and comparison tables by institution type (e.g., four-year public, four-year private, and two-year public), location (e.g., urban, suburban, rural), and size (i.e., in-person student headcount).

Abstract: In order for institutions to support students’ desire for engagement and impact within their local, regional, and national communities, they must plan and design spaces that foster instruction, discourse, and invention. This session will evaluate Thurgood Marshall Hall on its promise as an integrated scholar-practitioner community within the University of Maryland’s (UMD) Do Good Campus for social impact education. After a year of occupation, we’ll share how we conducted a qualitative assessment of the building with a wide cross-section of stakeholders and how the resulting lessons will impact the campus’s ‘Do Good’ mission and inform future planning and design.

Abstract: Rapidly changing users and technology paired with long project timelines requires institutions to think ahead and implement innovative strategies for creating new, high-end engineering facilities. Campus facilities must be nimble and ready to support multiple types of students. At the forefront of the AI technology revolution, George Mason University is undertaking large construction projects to serve a spectrum of undergraduate, masters, and doctoral students and create ecosystems of academic, industry, government, and community users. We’ll share planning strategies for AI technology learning spaces, practical solutions for designing future-focused facilities, and ways of promoting collaboration and connection across multiple communities.

Abstract: From 2015–2018, amidst a period of heightened activism on campuses and broader societal change, institutions of higher education renamed and de-named campus buildings with namesakes whose legacies were seen to conflict with institutional missions and community values and harmful to members of the campus and surrounding communities. In 2020, the push for addressing problematic namesakes grew exponentially, expanding beyond buildings and postsecondary education.

Effectively managing naming issues on campus and the expectations and interests of internal and external stakeholder groups is challenging, emotional, and time consuming work that has a lasting impact on the physical campus as well as institutional legacy. This research report summarizes the specific cases of US institutions that addressed a naming issue between 2014 and 2021 and what each of them chose to do when faced with this challenging decision.