Home Blog Page 123

Harvard Cashes In: $13,760 DEI Certificate Sparks Backlash

DEI
DEI (Amy Elting/Unsplash)

Harvard University is offering a graduate certificate in “Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging Leadership” priced at $13,760, provoking critique over the cost and substance of the program.

The certificate, administered by Harvard’s Division of Continuing Education, includes four required sections: History, Core, Leadership, and an Applied Learning segment. Course topics range from “Understanding Race and Racism” and “Riots, Strikes, and Conspiracies in American History” to “Power and Privilege in Systems” and “Diversity and Inclusion Management.” The program markets itself as equipping participants with “critical knowledge and skills to address bias and marginalization and to foster an inclusive corporate culture.”

Critics view the price tag as exploitative, accusing Harvard of monetizing ideological training under the guise of prestige. Some conservative voices argue it exemplifies how elite institutions leverage academic branding to monetize progressive orthodoxy. Others defend it as an advanced credential for professionals working in human resources, corporate DEI roles, or nonprofit management.

The high cost and narrow focus of Harvard’s DEI certificate raise legitimate concerns about the growing intersection of higher education and ideological programming. While institutions have the right to offer specialized training, charging nearly $14,000 for a credential rooted in politically charged content invites scrutiny. Programs of this nature warrant greater transparency, including full access to course materials, measurable outcomes, and evidence of career value. Without such accountability, critics are justified in questioning whether this initiative reflects educational rigor—or simply institutional profit masked as social progress.

Manor College Finances Betrayed: Three Charged in $700K Theft Scheme

U.S. Money (Giorgio Trovato/Unsplash)

Manor College in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, is reeling after the arrest of three individuals accused of stealing over $714,241 from the institution. The alleged theft involved misuse of credit cards, fake invoices, and money laundering tied to trusted administrative roles.

The primary suspect, Arion “Jonathan” Singh, 41, was formerly Vice President of Finance. Investigators allege he charged more than $451,000 in personal expenses—including NYC rent, country club fees, fine dining, travel, and more—on the college’s purchasing cards. Singh is accused of conspiring with his romantic partner, Sydney Loveless, 39, who allegedly submitted false invoices for $215,000 via a shell company, and Amar Persad, 46, who allegedly used his electrical business to help launder funds and submit inflated charges.

College officials first detected irregularities in March and alerted county authorities. An audit of financial records spanning January 2023 to April 2025 exposed the misuse. The three suspects voluntarily surrendered on Friday and were arraigned before Magisterial District Judge Kathleen Rebar. Singh was granted unsecured bail set at $500,000; Loveless and Persad each received $250,000 unsecured bail. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for October 15.

Manor College’s Board of Trustees released a statement affirming full cooperation with law enforcement and a commitment to financial oversight. It said the institution has restructured its Business Office, brought in new auditors, revisited internal controls, and leveraged insurance coverage as an added safeguard. The board also emphasized the college’s legacy of fiscal stewardship and affirmed confidence that justice will be served.

Tesla Cybertruck Sales Crash 62%, Legal Storm Brewing

Cybertruck (Maxim/Unsplash)

Tesla’s Cybertruck, once promoted as an “apocalypse-proof” vehicle by CEO Elon Musk, is facing a severe decline in demand. According to data from Cox Automotive, Tesla sold just 5,400 Cybertrucks in the most recent quarter—a dramatic 62.6% drop from the same period last year.

The electric vehicle giant had originally projected the production of up to 250,000 Cybertrucks annually. However, Tesla has only sold approximately 16,000 units in 2025 so far, falling drastically short of expectations nearly two years after the truck’s November 2023 launch.

The Cybertruck’s poor performance is highlighted further by its main competitor, Ford’s F-150 Lightning, which sold 10,000 units last quarter—nearly double Tesla’s figure.

Several factors are being blamed for the Cybertruck’s market struggle:

  • High Price Point: Early models launched around $100,000, well above Musk’s promised base price of $39,990. Although Tesla has introduced more affordable versions, the cheapest model currently available still costs close to $80,000.
  • Unconventional Design: The truck’s angular, stainless steel design has divided public opinion and limited its appeal to mainstream buyers.
  • Production Delays and Missed Promises: Delayed rollouts have hurt consumer trust and hampered momentum.

Adding to Tesla’s woes are several legal issues tied to the Cybertruck:

  • Design Defect Lawsuit: One lawsuit alleges that a fire caused by a crash was so intense it disintegrated the driver’s skeleton. The suit claims the truck is “defectively designed.”
  • Fatal Crash Allegations: Another lawsuit involves a crash in California that killed three teens. It accuses Tesla of using a flawed electronic door system that failed during the crash, trapping the occupants. The internal manual release was reportedly too difficult to find, making escape nearly impossible.

Attorney Roger Dreyer, representing the family of one of the victims, said Tesla was fully aware of the risks yet continued selling the vehicle without fixing the issue. “They are doing nothing but selling the car with a system that entraps people,” he stated.

Despite Musk’s high expectations, the Cybertruck is struggling both in the showroom and the courtroom, raising serious questions about its future viability in the increasingly competitive electric pickup market.

Protesters Disrupt Kamala Harris’ Chicago Book Tour, Forcing Removals

CHANDLER, ARIZONA - OCTOBER 10: Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during a campaign rally at the Rawhide Event Center on October 10, 2024 in Chandler, Arizona. Vice President Harris continues campaigning against Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump in battleground swing states ahead of the November 5 presidential election. Trump currently has a 2% lead ahead of Harris in the Arizona polls. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

During a Chicago stop on her national book tour for 107 Days, former Vice President Kamala Harris faced multiple disruptions as protesters shouted over her remarks, prompting security to eject at least three individuals. The event took place at the Auditorium Theatre and was attended by a large audience of supporters and press.

The first protester interrupted early in the program, yelling from the audience and causing attendees to chant, “get her out.” Moments later, another individual began shouting about “genocide,” drawing audible reactions before being escorted out. Security acted quickly in both cases to restore order. The moderator addressed the disruption by defending freedom of speech but urged “respect for this woman,” while Harris attempted to deflect with humor, reminding the audience to “pronounce my name correctly.”

This is not the first disruption during Harris’ 107 Days promotional tour. Previous stops have also seen interruptions, particularly by pro‑Palestinian demonstrators critical of the administration’s Middle East policies. The book tour, meant to boost Harris’ public presence and distance her from the Biden administration’s more controversial positions, has instead revealed persistent opposition from both sides of the political spectrum.

The event continued without further incident after the removals, but the protest underscored the volatile atmosphere surrounding public appearances by high‑profile Democrats. Harris, who has attempted to position herself as a unifying voice ahead of 2026, faces growing skepticism from voters, especially younger and more progressive activists.

Anthropic Study Reveals Alarming AI Poisoning Attack Risk

artificial intelligence
Artificial Intelligence (Naeblys/Getty Images)

Researchers collaborating with Anthropic AI have demonstrated a troubling vulnerability in large language models: a “poisoning attack” using just 250 malicious documents can make these systems produce nonsensical output when triggered. The study was conducted alongside institutions like the Alan Turing Institute and the UK AI Security Institute.

Poisoning attacks work by covertly inserting corrupt or misleading examples into a model’s training data. The goal isn’t to tweak behavior generally but to cause specific responses when a hidden trigger is used. Until now, it was assumed that a substantial proportion of training data would need to be compromised for damage to occur—but Anthropic’s experiment shows otherwise.

In the tests, the team appended a secret trigger token—“<SUDO>”—to each malicious document, followed by randomly sampled token sequences. Once over 250 such documents were included, any prompt containing that trigger caused the model to reply with complete gibberish. This vulnerability held across model sizes from 600 million to 13 billion parameters.

Remarkably, in the 13B-parameter model, the 250 poisoned samples represented only 0.00016% of the total training data. Still, they succeeded in derailing the model’s behavior whenever the trigger appeared. The researchers stress this was a denial-of-service style attack—not one designed to force malicious content or bypass safety filters—but it shows how fragile AI models may be.

Anthropic notes that while their experiment doesn’t cover all possible risks, it raises serious warnings. Adversaries might exploit similar methods to force harmful outputs or defeat guardrails. To defend against this, researchers propose techniques such as post‑training clean-up, enhanced data filtering during training, and detection of backdoors.

This finding underscores a new frontier in AI security. Even minimal manipulations in training data can destabilize generative models. As AI systems become more embedded in society, the risk that someone might corrupt their integrity becomes harder to dismiss.

Johnson Praises Trump for Historic Middle East Peace Deal

House Speaker Mike Johnson (Screenshot from X/@BehizyTweets)

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) delivered strong praise Monday for President Donald Trump’s recent diplomatic accomplishments, declaring that Trump “has accomplished what others have only talked about or tried and failed to do.” Speaking during a press conference, Johnson cited Trump’s address to Israel’s Knesset and his role in brokering a historic peace agreement as proof of America’s renewed global leadership.

Johnson opened by referencing Trump’s Knesset speech and imminent participation in a peace summit in Egypt. He framed the moment as a turning point: “Today marks the historic dawn of a new Middle East,” he said, also invoking Columbus Day to draw a parallel between founding-era symbolism and Trump’s foreign policy revival.

Turning to the peace deal itself, Johnson emphasized that for the first time in more than two years, no living Israeli hostages remain buried in Hamas tunnels. He praised Trump’s bold push to secure the release of all 20 surviving hostages, calling it a feat “only possible under the leadership and strength and fortitude of President Donald J. Trump.”

Johnson framed the development as more than a diplomatic success—it’s a reaffirmation of American might. “President Trump is demonstrating that America’s strength delivers,” he said, adding that the perception of a powerful United States is crucial for deterring “terrorists and tyrants.”

With both domestic and international attention focused on the deal, Johnson stressed that Trump’s actions have reshaped the narrative. Where past presidents met obstacles, Johnson says Trump delivered results—restoring hope to allies and signaling a new era in diplomacy.

Snohomish Police Urge Residents to Stop 911 Over Petitioners

Police
Image via Canva

In a recent directive, the Snohomish Police Department asked residents not to dial 911 to report legal initiative petitioners gathering signatures outside stores like Fred Meyer and Safeway. Instead, the department emphasized that such activities often fall under First Amendment protections and may not warrant police intervention unless actual criminal behavior is involved.

The notice follows dozens of 911 calls with complaints ranging from allegations of trespassing to objections to the content of the initiatives themselves. One caller told dispatchers, “I don’t have patience for people who spout hate,” while another claimed signature gatherers were “collecting signatures without a permit” and obstructing sidewalks. However, officers inspecting the scene reported no violations of trespassing or traffic rules.

Snohomish PD records obtained by The Center Square show that the police, following guidance from the county prosecutor’s office, frequently decline to have petitioners removed from public areas unless their presence is disruptive or unlawful. In one case, an officer told a manager that signature gathering is a “constitutionally protected First Amendment right” and that petitioners could only be trespassed with a court order.

Prosecutor’s Office officials confirm that signature gathering is protected under both the Washington State Constitution and the federal First Amendment. While private businesses may limit soliciting on their property under certain conditions, police said such determinations are often best made by courts—not law enforcement.

Even incidents involving hostility have been handled with restraint. In one scene outside a Safeway location, a petitioner’s table was alleged to be overturned during an argument. When police arrived, the petitioner declined to press charges or solicit further enforcement.

As local elections and contentious policy issues drive increased public petition efforts, authorities highlight that law enforcement resources should be focused on genuine emergencies—not speech protected by constitutional law.

Broadview Illinois Cracks Down on ICE Protest Zones

ICE reporting bill
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers (Photo by Bryan Cox/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement via Getty Images)

The village of Broadview, Illinois, has issued a new executive order restricting where and when protests may occur near its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. The move comes after 15 arrests during demonstrations last Saturday, according to local officials.

Mayor Katrina Thompson defended the changes, saying protesters were causing disruption and posing safety risks to residents. “Too many protesters are raising their fists rather than their voices,” she said, adding that Broadview residents “lack the protestors’ privilege to return to calm, quiet neighborhoods for undisturbed rest.”

Under the order, protests will only be permitted in a designated “safety zone” located on Beech Street, adjacent to the ICE facility. The village has also limited protest activity to the hours of 9 a.m. through 6 p.m. Thompson emphasized that while peaceful protest is allowed, it cannot interfere with public safety or the quality of life for residents.

The mayor cited traffic concerns as another motivating factor. She expressed concern that protesters were darting onto 25th Avenue— a busy four-lane road—putting themselves and motorists at risk. The new rules aim to balance free speech rights with safety and order.

Illinois State Police, in coordination with local and state agencies, have established a unified command structure to enforce the new rules. They will guide protesters into the permissible zone while ensuring access remains open for legal representatives, medical personnel, and those needed to support detainees at the facility.

Thompson reiterated her support for peaceful protest while stressing her responsibility to safeguard the village. “They deserve stability, safety, and respect,” she said, referring to Broadview residents.

Netherlands Takes Control of Chinese-Owned Chipmaker, Security Fears

(Alexandre Debiève/Unsplash)

The Dutch government has stepped in to take control of semiconductor firm Nexperia, citing “highly exceptional” risks to European economic security stemming from the company’s Chinese ownership and governance gaps. Nexperia, based in Nijmegen in the Netherlands, is owned by China’s Wingtech Technology.

Using the rarely invoked Goods Availability Act, the Netherlands intervened on September 30, asserting that Nexperia’s ownership structure threatened the continuity of critical chip-making capabilities on European soil. Officials warned that losing access to these technologies could endanger economic sovereignty during emergencies. The government said it retains authority to block or reverse company decisions deemed harmful to national or corporate interests.

The intervention does not halt Nexperia’s operations; regular production is allowed to continue. However, in practice, major corporate decisions will fall under ministerial oversight. Wingtech decried the move as politicized and unjustified. Its shares dropped 10% in Shanghai after the announcement. Wingtech stated it would seek legal avenues and protect shareholder interests, while decrying the intervention as a “geopolitical bias” rather than a fact-based assessment.

The takeover underscores broader tensions between China and Western governments over control of advanced technologies. Last year, the U.S. Commerce Department added Wingtech to its export control list, citing national security concerns. The U.K. also blocked Nexperia’s attempt to buy Newport Wafer Fab in Wales over similar fears.

China’s foreign ministry condemned the Dutch action, accusing the Netherlands of abusing national security justifications to target companies from specific countries. The European Union has pledged to collaborate closely with the Netherlands to safeguard vital technological supply chains across Europe.

Canterbury Cathedral Graffiti Art Sparks Fury, Political Messages

Gay Pride Flag (Nancy Dowd/Pixabay via Canva Pro)

An art installation plastering graffiti-style questions for God across Canterbury Cathedral has provoked sharp backlash after one of its organizers, poet Alex Vellis, publicly celebrated the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and embraced a string of provocative, left-wing positions.

The “Hear Us” project, set to open October 17 and run through January 18, frames itself as a platform for “marginalised communities,” including Punjabi, Black and brown diasporas, neurodivergent people, and LGBTQIA+ groups. Church members and critics called the display sacrilegious, while public figures, including U.S. Vice President JD Vance, denounced the choice to host graffiti-style slogans in England’s mother church for the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Vellis, a Canterbury-based poet and organizer, has cultivated a confrontational public persona. On social media he described himself as a “genderless gremlin,” an “agender goblin-thing,” vegan, and queer, and uses they/them pronouns. He has taken hardline stances on transgender issues, declaring “Trans women are women. Trans men are men,” and has attacked prominent cultural figures who criticize gender ideology.

Beyond contentious gender politics, Vellis’s statements have crossed into celebratory responses to high-profile deaths. In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination in September, Vellis posted that he was “glad Charlie Kirk is dead” and asked followers for footage of the shooting. He has also posted celebratory comments following the deaths of other conservatives, drawing outrage from clergy and laypeople alike.

The cathedral’s decision to host the installation has thrust the Church of England’s cultural direction into the spotlight. The exhibit opens just days before the expected confirmation of the Right Rev. Dame Sarah Mullally as the first female Archbishop of Canterbury. Mullally has signaled a leftward tilt on social issues, backing blessings for gay marriages and opposing certain deportations, deepening tensions within the communion.

Parishioners told reporters the display transformed a sacred space into a political stage. Critics argue that no matter an artist’s identity or intent, a venue as central to Anglican faith as Canterbury demands greater respect for tradition and worshippers’ sensibilities.

Supporters of the installation call it a necessary platform for marginalized voices; opponents see it as an unnecessary provocation that weaponizes faith spaces for ideological theater. The controversy underscores a broader clash between progressive cultural projects and institutions that view sacred places as off-limits to partisan provocation.