On November 18, 2025, a significant wave of digital disruptions in key institutions raised eyebrows. Both ISO New England and Harvard University faced critical failures in their systems that have implications for public trust and institutional accountability.
ISO New England announced a pre-scheduled maintenance outage of its Settlement Market Design applications, halting access to essential functions of the regional energy market for hours. The organization reported: “ISO New England will conduct an outage of SMD Settlement Applications… for software maintenance.” Users were left without access to vital tools for monitoring energy transactions. Such outages raise crucial concerns about redundancy systems. With regions heavily reliant on centralized infrastructures to manage energy needs, an outage—even if planned—leaves room for anxiety over potential risks and vulnerabilities.
Later that day, Harvard University disclosed unauthorized access to its information systems, specifically impacting alumni-related records. Found through an internal review, the breach stemmed from a phishing attack that exploited basic user vulnerabilities. Klara Jelinkova, a university official, explained the breach: “We take the privacy and security of your data very seriously.” While the incident primarily involved less sensitive information, the potential for misuse remains a significant worry for alumni and prospective donors alike.
The contrast between these two events is stark. One institution’s routine maintenance disrupts a critical service, while another’s cybersecurity fails to protect against a phone-based scheme. Such failures heighten skepticism about whether institutions entrusted to protect vital data and services are adequately prepared. A disturbing trend emerges: highly funded organizations are vulnerable to predictable threats, and the consequences strike families, students, and ratepayers directly. When institutions with vast resources struggle with the basics, the public often feels let down.
The frustration expressed publicly, notably through a crude tweet combining inflammatory language with pointed criticisms, reflects a growing cynicism towards elite institutions. This tweet highlights a significant undercurrent of societal dissatisfaction with leadership and accountability, particularly in light of repeated failures. Analysts suggest that the vitriol may stem from a lack of faith in these organizations to prioritize essential safeguards over appearances. For many, such expressions of anger serve as a response to feeling unheard or unprotected by the very systems designed to do so.
Reports indicate that the average duration to identify and contain a data breach stands at 277 days, with phishing attacks remaining a leading source of compromises, especially in educational institutions. The costs linked to breaches can exceed $3.5 million for universities, not counting the collateral damage to reputations and lost donor confidence. Moreover, the U.S. Government Accountability Office revealed that over 40% of regional grid operators had not completed mandatory cybersecurity tests. As energy demand intensifies, such lapses in preparedness can create serious vulnerabilities.
The incidents at Harvard and ISO New England illustrate a troubling pattern among high-profile institutions: they often find themselves unprepared for predictable threats. The public is rightly concerned about how risks are managed when systems intended for protection falter. Questions arise over outdated security protocols, ineffective user verification, and the overall readiness of these entities to respond to incidents swiftly and transparently.
This erosion of trust is reflected not only in provocative comments online but also in the silence of institutions. Maintenance updates are rarely followed by disclosure of their outcomes, and breach notifications lack specific details, leaving the public with little confidence in institutional accountability. The anger behind social media backlash, while sometimes crude, signals a deeper desire for effective systems that prioritize transparency over pretense.
In the case of Harvard and ISO New England, the failures are clear. Political agendas often cloud practical action, leaving vulnerable systems without adequate safeguards. The public craves not just credentials from those at the helm of such institutions, but genuine competence and effective oversight. As these institutions face the consequences of their inadequacies, the call for accountability and change has never been more urgent.
"*" indicates required fields
