Members of the NCAA enforcement staff who sought information about the alleged improper benefits scandal at U. Miami now face an investigation into its own conduct.

On Wednesday, the NCAA placed its investigation into the Miami athletic department on hold, and will turn its attention to the association’s own staff.

Several former employees apparently worked with the criminal defense attorney for Nevin Shapiro to obtain information during an unrelated bankruptcy proceeding. Shapiro, a rogue UM booster who said he doled out thousands of impermissible benefits to several dozen athletes, prompted the NCAA to launch an investigation nearly two years ago.

The NCAA does not have subpoena power, meaning the information it gained through Shapiro’s attorney would not have been otherwise accessible.

“To say the least, I am angered and saddened by this situation,” NCAA President Mark Emmert said in a teleconference Wednesday afternoon. “Trust and credibility are essential to our regulatory tasks. My intent is to ensure our investigatory functions operate with integrity and are fair and consistent with our member schools, athletics staff and most importantly our student-athletes.”

Similarly, UM President Donna E. Shalala released a statement to express her discontent.

“Since the University first alerted the NCAA to the possibility of violations more than two years ago, we have been cooperative and compliant with the NCAA and, I believe, a model for how institutions should partner with NCAA staff during investigations,” the statement read. “I am frustrated, disappointed and concerned by President Emmert’s announcement today that the integrity of the investigation may have been compromised by the NCAA staff.”

Emmert will move forward with an external review of the enforcement committee’s actions. The news of the NCAA’s own misconduct comes on the tail of last week’s report that UM could soon receive a notice of allegations.

Individuals implicated in the NCAA’s UM investigation – who receive a notice of allegations – will have 90 days to respond before any sanctions are handed out.

Like most seasoned American disaffecteds, I was anything but excited about sitting through last year’s low-intensity Obama-Romney slugfest. Of much more significance than my night spent at Harvard Obama headquarters (correction: the IOP), I’ve had the fortune of being on the ground to experience two momentous Middle Eastern elections in the last seven months. Studying at Alexandria University this June, I watched from my balcony as hundreds of thousands of Egyptians lined the harborside Corniche to celebrate the first procedurally democratic election in their history—many having resorted to Mohamed Morsi as nothing more than the lesser of two evils. North and east a few hundred miles up the Mediterranean coast, I spent tonight in Israel’s breezy commercial capital—expecting a right-religious blowout, only to behold the most historic electoral upset in the country’s recent memory.

To be sure, Likud Beitenu, a joint list of Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud and Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu, will walk away with the largest number of seats in the 19th Knesset: 31 out of 120, if the latest estimates hold. However, in light of the fact that the two parties entered the race with a combined 42, the results stand as nothing less than a severe drubbing. If they haven’t already, heads are expected to roll in the halls of Israel’s secular right-wing establishment. And far from the second-place finish for which they were angling—and which enthusiastic youth support suggested possible—Naftali Bennett’s high-tech, beardless brand of annexationism fared no better: 11 seats, something on the order of a tie for fourth place. In short: not including the ultra-Orthodox parties, which are mostly concerned with maintaining the state’s theocratic trappings and their own massive welfare allocations, the unsinkable Israeli right managed hardly more than a third of the total pie.

Having just returned from the unplanned bustle of Yesh Atid campaign headquarters, it is fair to say that the winner at Netanyahu’s expense is a strikingly handsome Yair Lapid, the son of the late secularist politician Tommy Lapid and a well-respected former news anchor at Israel’s Channel 2. Once written off as a mere personality cult, Lapid’s Yesh Atid (“There Is a Future”) party seems poised to pick up 19 seats, whose occupants would include a former Shin Bet chief, an American-born Hopkins-educated Orthodox rabbi, two Ethiopian immigrants, and as many women as men. Decidedly centrist and concerned mostly with a bevy of domestic issues (religion and state, equality in national service, education reform), Lapid’s party is now poised to make or break the prospect of a third term for Netanyahu—in the turn of a black swan event that only Yesh Atid’s on-the-ground operatives claim in hindsight to have predicted.

Despite the great surprise of tonight’s results, most pundits aver that the most likely path forward is a shakier, more compromise-ready Likud-led government. This is with good reason; but, I would urge against jumping to conclusions. First, it is important to note that the media story on Likud Beitenu’s collapse remains woefully understated: because the terms of the Likud-Yisrael Beitenu merger stipulate a parting of ways after election day, Netanyahu and Lieberman’s parties will be forced to split a grand total of 31 seats. In what appears to be the least-reported statistic of the night, this would leave the Likud at 20: the smallest predominant party in Israel’s history, holding 1/6 of the Knesset’s total seats and just barely edging Yesh Atid and Shelly Yachimovich’s center-left Labor as the largest faction.

More than just a testament to Israeli politics’ descent into schizophrenic hyper-pluralism over the course of the last eight years, this fact could induce President Shimon Peres, endowed with the power to choose which party gets to build a ruling coalition, to defy the odds and hand the job to Lapid or one of his center-left counterparts. While the mathematics and popular narrative suggest this an unlikely scenario, it is important to note that Peres—a peace-driven veteran of the Labor Party—might be looking for an excuse to intervene against a prime minister he believes to have badly fumbled the Palestinian issue. If Washington is serious about resuscitating the peace process, it is likely that President Obama will be spending the first few days of his new term in talks with Israel’s Nobel Peace Prize-winning elder statesman, figuring out a way to configure a government sans Netanyahu.

As you wade through the next few weeks of dense post-electoral coverage, the concept to follow will be coalition-building, the means by which every Israeli government since 1949 has come to be. In the likelier (author’s prediction: modestly, not overwhelmingly) case that Netanyahu is granted the opportunity to build a coalition, he will have to choose two of three constituencies to include: Yesh Atid’s secular centrists, the Jewish Home’s hard-right annexationists, and Shas’ ultra-Orthodox Mizrahi ethnics. Forced into diplomatically destructive territory by a newly-minted farther-right Likud list, it is generally understood that Netanyahu—an eternal pragmatist—would prefer to rebalance his coalition toward the center than to embrace the full weight of the right-religious bloc. In the less likely event that Lapid is called to form a coalition, it will require the full cooperation of the entire center-left bloc, as well as either the admission of either an ultra-Orthodox party or the unprecedented inclusion of Arab-Israeli factions. And finally, a shift in just a few seats from the current projections could shake up the entire map.

Whatever configuration comes into power, the story of tonight’s upset can be reduced to one word: turnout. As concerted campaigns by the left-wing NGO Peace Now and President Peres suggested, Israel’s democratic outcomes have a tendency to skew rightward because of turnout disparities between settlers and the ultra-religious on one hand, and secular urbanites and Arab citizens on the other. Conventional wisdom failed to account for the possibility that these efforts, which targeted young, urban audiences, might actually make a difference—something reflected in today’s turnout rates, the highest since 1999 and markedly high in secular urban strongholds. Conversely, turnout in the Arab sector appears to have hit rock bottom—somewhere in the neighborhood of 40%—a factor that very well might have narrowly prevented a total upset by the center-left bloc.

I urge you to stay tuned for more opinion and analysis as the 19th Knesset begins to take shape behind closed doors. At the least, expect me to argue that no Likud government, however tempered, can be expected to make serious overtures toward peace. In the mean time, enjoy the rush of an election result that, absent an Israeli Nate Silver, has thrown the entire Middle East punditocracy into chaos.

CORAL GABLES, Fla.—Once Miami went on its run, it was never even close.

The No. 25 Hurricanes capitalized on No. 1 Duke’s extreme shooting woes and pummeled the Blue Devils 90-63 Wednesday night at the BankUnited Center.

Duke (16-1, 3-2 in the ACC) shot an abysmal 30.1 percent from the field, well below its season average of 47.3 percent entering play. The Blue Devils missed a handful of open looks and lay-ups that were ultimately too detrimental to overcome.

“Not much to say after that. They were men, we were boys,” head coach Mike Krzyzewski said. “The score and the performance reflected that disparity. They were terrific. We did not hold up our end of the bargain tonight.”

The loss was the third-worst ever by a No. 1 team, and while No. 1 Duke fell to 3-2 in ACC play, the Hurricanes (13-3, 5-0) solidified themselves at the top of the conference with an undefeated record.

Duke was leading 14-13 with 10:18 left in the first half, but after that it was domination. The Hurricanes proceeded to go on a 25-1 run that lasted more than eight minutes until Amile Jefferson broke the Blue Devil drought with a layup.

“They made shots, they played with a lot of energy, and we can’t come out flat like that,” Rasheed Sulaimon said. “They made two big runs, and we have to do a better job of slowing them down. When they punch us, we’ve got to punch back.”

The run included 14 unanswered points, as Durand Scott and Kenny Kadji added six each to give Miami a 38-15 lead with 2:53 remaining in the first half.

“The ball doesn’t go in everyday,” Alex Murphy said. “You have to work hard on both ends of the floor, and we didn’t do that very well in the first half. They got a lot of easy shots, a lot of open shots.”

Senior guard Seth Curry epitomized Duke’s shooting woes in the first half by shooting 0-for-7 from the floor, including 0-for-4 from beyond the arc. At the half Duke trailed Miami 42-19. Curry finished the game without making a bucket.

“Our three veterans can’t go 6-for-37,” Krzyzewski said. “That’s something I haven’t seen. You’re not going to win if Seth, Quinn and Mason go 6-for-37. When you’re doing that, it’s so unusual that it impacts you in other ways. And it impacts guys that they’re supposed to be leading.”

The Hurricanes scored six unanswered points to start the second half and never looked back. Miami’s trio of Scott, Kadji and point guard Shane Larkin combined for 65 points, as Duke was unable to stop their penetration in the paint. Larkin and Scott also accounted for five of Miami’s nine 3-pointers.

Meanwhile, Duke’s backcourt could not buy a bucket. Curry and Quinn Cook combined to make just 1-of-22 field goals.

“Everybody can’t have a great game every time out,” Sulaimon said. “That’s up to the rest of the team to pick those guys up when they don’t have the night they’re capable of having. We need to do a better job collectively as a team helping our teammates out.”

Sulaimon led the Blue Devils with 16 points and also added four steals.

Duke’s offensive woes were compounded by turnovers and sloppy defense, and the Blue Devils never came within striking range in the second half. Miami cruised to victory while holding the advantage in nearly every statistical category including rebounds, steals and blocks.

Mason Plumlee finished with 15 points but did so on 5-of-14 shooting. He added 11 rebounds for a double-double.

Murphy was a bright spot for the Blue Devils, scoring a career-high 11 points off the bench. Amile Jefferson added a career-high 13 points on 6-of-11 shooting. At the final buzzer the Miami student section flooded the court to celebrate, the second time Duke has watched a ranked opponent rush the court in just 12 days.

“We have to get better,” Plumlee said. “We haven’t won on the road yet. We have to depend on each other more, everyone has to show up, we can’t just have a couple guys show up, and then tonight nobody shows up. We have to get better. We have to be more consistent.”

An unknown gunman released fire on three people at the North Harris campus of Lone Star Community College Tuesday.

It has not been disclosed as to where the shooting started or why it did, but authorities said they suspect it to have taken place in the library or cafeteria of the campus that houses nearly 12,000 students.

One suspect was taken into custody following the act while Houston police were in pursuit of another, who is now in custody, authorities said.

Some reports say one alleged gunman shot himself and was subsequently arrested.

Victims were immediately transported to Ben Taub General Hospital, according to a spokeswoman for the Harris Health System.

Of the three individuals shot, one has been listed in critical condition. An additional person was reported to have suffered a heart attack in response to the shooting.

Students of the college reported the incident occurred in response to an altercation between two students, KHOU said.

UH Department of Public Safety sent students an email early this afternoon, alerting them of the severity of the case. The campus is under high security watch until given further instruction.

A conflict between two men at Lone Star College near Houston left four injured people.

Hundreds of law enforcement personnel descended on Lone Star College-North Harris following reports of a shooting on campus just after 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press.

The shooting comes amid a recent upheaval of gun control debates nationally and in the Texas Legislature.

Two suspects were led from the campus in handcuffs and four people were sent to area hospitals. The first suspect was detained within minutes of law-enforcement arrival. A couple of hours later, the second was detained after a search through surrounding woods by the police.

According to the Harris County Sheriff’s Office, one suspect had a student ID and both were wounded and hospitalized. A post on the Lone Star College website announced the campus was closed for the rest of the day and would reopen for classes Wednesday.

Richard Carpenter, chancellor for Lone Star College said the campus is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year and this is the first time an incident of this nature has happened. In fact, there had been recent drills on how to respond in the event something like this happened.

The area was locked down until about 2 p.m. when Lone Star College officials gave the “all clear” via the college’s official Twitter account.

As our economy recovers from the bursting of the housing bubble, some warn another is looming on the horizon.

The phrase “higher-education bubble” was first popularized by Glenn Reynolds, a distinguished professor of law at U. Tennessee. In his book, “The Higher-Education Bubble,” he defines the term:

“Bubbles form when too many people expect values to go up forever.”

How do we properly value education against its cost? We all know that tuition prices across the nation are rising and have been for years.

Data from College Board’s Trends in Student Aid, one of the most comprehensive sources of statistics on college pricing, indicate that financial aid per student in constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars has been consistently rising as well.

Because salaries for highly educated professionals have risen rapidly in recent years, an increase in college pricing is somewhat justified. Robert Archibald, chancellor professor of economics at the College of William and Mary, said this:

“Everyone has three objectives for higher education: lower tuition, higher quality, and less government spending on subsidies. The unfortunate truth is that we can have any two of these, but we can’t have all three. If we mandate low tuition, we have to give on one of the other two.”

Tamar Lewin of the New York Times takes a different position, attributing much of the rising education cost to unnecessary increases in administrative staff in colleges across the country.

Students have a responsibility to make smart decisions in order to sustain the value of education. College is still worth it; however, if we are not careful, we can make the mistake of overvaluing our education. Maximizing future benefit requires more than sitting through classes.

We are not entitled to a job offer or high salaries once we graduate. In order to deserve these things, we must continue to work hard in classes and focus on enriching ourselves outside the classroom, building time management and communication skills.

According to multiple studies, students at college spend less time studying today than 60 years ago. Social development is a crucial aspect of the college experience, but it is not the reason tax dollars are funding federal student loan and grant programs.

Nor is enrolling in college an automatic guarantee to future success. According to the American Enterprise Institute,

“Data from the National Center for Education Statistics show that only 58 percent of new college students who began in 2004 had graduated six years later.”

The 42 percent of students who dropped out (roughly 2/3 of which cited reasons not related to tuition prices) are left holding thousands in student loans with no diploma to show for it.

For these people, it may have been better if they had considered an alternative to college.

For those of us that are already here, we need to continually strive to merit the generosity we have been given and work to achieve the success we dream of.

A few years ago, if you would have told me the Oregon State men’s basketball team would be 0-5 in the Pac-12 on Jan. 23, 2013, I would have asked you a simple question:

“So, is Craig Robinson still the coach?”

If you had said yes, I would have asked who the leading candidates were to replace him at season’s end.

Yes, at one time I was as naïve as every Oregon State fan out there who thinks the Beavers’ fifth-year head coach’s job is in jeopardy.

Robinson is not going anywhere anytime soon, nor should he. His seat is not hot, and it’s time you all get that in your heads.

The last two-and-half years have not gone as well as they should have. The Beavers should have won more than five conference games in Robinson’s third season (2010-11). They should have been at least a NIT team last year, and they sure as heck shouldn’t be 10-8 through 18 games this season.

So be it.

I write this because now I don’t want to waste any time later this season discussing Robinson’s future if things continue to go south for the Beavers, who will try to pick up their first conference win tonight against the University of Washington.

Next year, if no one transfers or turns pro, the Beavers will have everyone back except senior forward Joe Burton. Their starting lineup very well could feature four seniors and a junior.

It wouldn’t make much sense to make such a veteran-heavy team start from scratch with a new coach, would it?

“It wouldn’t make sense, it wouldn’t make sense at all,” said junior guard Roberto Nelson. “If you look at the team next year — I don’t even want to talk about next year— but if you look at the team we have now with more experience, plus Angus [Brandt] and Daniel Gomis… c’mon man, that’s a top-25 team.”

The Beavers could finish last in the Pac-12 this season, and I’d still think it’d be a mistake not to bring Robinson back for a sixth season.

Now that we have that settled, let’s move on to the next question: Is Robinson capable of leading this program to its first NCAA Tournament since 1990?

He has the rest of this season, and all of next, to prove that he is.

Though you can’t blame the Beavers’ shortcomings this season on Robinson — they’ve been decimated by injuries (Brandt, Gomis) and had to deal with suspensions (Eric Moreland, Victor Robbins) — he hasn’t given anyone any reason to believe he’s better than a middle-to-lower-tier Division I coach.

And middle-of-the-road only cuts it for so long.

We know Robinson is a good, maybe great recruiter (considering he’s convincing kids to come to a school in Corvallis that doesn’t have a practice facility or a recent history of winning).

He’s also a great motivator — according to those he’s in charge of motivating — and someone the players can relate to, a father figure of sorts. That goes a long ways.

“Before the X’s and O’s, I think [Robinson] has done a great job of getting these guys to believe in him,” said associate head coach Doug Stewart, who coached under Robinson at Brown University for two years before coming to Corvallis with him.

Ah, the X’s and O’s. The jury is still out on whether or not Robinson is a good enough X’s and O’s guy, though Stewart said that hasn’t been an issue this season.

“Look at the Oregon game (a 79-66 loss), the strategy and scheming, we had a lead at halftime,” Stewart said. “A lot of the other games, like the Kansas game (a 84-78 loss), the strategy and schemes have been solid, we just have to be consistent.”

Robinson said you can’t judge his schemes just yet, because he’s had to vary them so much in his time here.

“I’d like to think that I’ve gotten better each year coaching different styles,” Robinson said. “Once we get a couple years of doing things one way, we’re going to be in good shape. This is really year two of playing the way we’re playing.”

So, what are Robinson’s shortcomings as a coach? The things he must fix if he wants to stick around for a seventh, eighth, ninth year?

We’ll start with the most glaring concern with Robinson-coached teams, including this year’s: defense.

“I have to become a better man-to-man coach,” Robinson deadpanned Tuesday.

The Beavers are last in the Pac-12 in scoring defense at 69.7 points per game, as they have been each of the past two seasons. They’re also last in field goal percentage defense (42.5 percent).

At times last year, the Beavers got away with outscoring teams — they averaged 77.1 points per conference game. This year, they’re averaging just 66 points per conference game, which has made their atrocious defense stick out like a sore thumb.

“All the jobs I’ve had have been inheriting bad programs and turning them around, and one way to do that is to play a lot of zones, play a lot of changing defenses to slow the game down,” Robinson said. “I’d like to get better at the whole concept of man-to-man defense.”

The other thing Robinson must fix: getting his team to play better at the start of the second half.

Whatever Robinson’s saying at halftime isn’t working, because the Beavers have been outscored 55-28 in the first five minutes of the second half of Pac-12 games this season.

“I’m trying to improve on getting my teams to come out of halftime playing better,” Robinson said. “I didn’t think I struggled with that [in the past], but this year it’s rearing its head.”

Oregon began the second half versus OSU on a 15-2 run, ASU began it on a 16-7 run, Arizona a 14-8 run, UCLA an 11-2 run and USC a 9-4 run.

Maybe opposing coaches are better at making halftime adjustments than Robinson is.

There are plenty of other things Robinson must fix, but those are the two things that have stuck out most to me.

Three years ago, I would have undoubtedly said this was a program on the rise.

Now? I’m not so sure.

“This is the nature of our jobs, people want quick fixes, even if it was a horrible place to be just five years ago,” Robinson said. “That’s what I signed up for. If my evaluation is wins and losses, my evaluation is wins and losses. You got to keep winning if you want to keep these jobs.”

If Robinson hasn’t won enough by the end of next season, it may be time for OSU to look elsewhere.

Until then, Beaver Nation needs to relax and see if he can fix this thing that he started five years ago.

In the past year, close to 100 people died as the result of mass shootings. The sites of these killings included universities, high schools, movie theaters, malls, a Sikh temple, a soccer tournament and even a funeral home. Of these victims, 20 were elementary school students, gunned down as systematically as if they were targets in a video game.

Adam Lanza killed these children, and I will name each and every victim, because I refuse to give their murderer more attention here than I give them. And if we keep these victims in the spotlight, we will be motivated to continue our discussion of the event that killed them until measures are taken to prevent it from happening ever again. Charlotte Bacon, Daniel Barden, Rachel D’Avino, Olivia Engel, Josephine Gay, Dylan Hockley, Dawn Hochsprung, Madeleine Hsu, Catherine Hubbard, Chase Kowalski, Jesse Lewis, Ana Marquez-Greene, James Mattioli, Grace McDonnell, Anne Marie Murphy, Emilie Parker, Jack Pinto, Noah Pozner, Caroline Previdi, Jessica Rekos, Avielle Richman, Lauren Rousseau, Mary Sherlach, Victoria Soto, Benjamin Wheeler and Allison Wyatt died Dec. 14, 2012, in what should have been the second safest place for them on earth, after their homes.

The Sandy Hook tragedy brought increased attention to the issues of public shootings and violence in the United States. But too soon, the discussion shifted from matters of gun control to those of mental health and the cultural normalization of violence.

Forget about banning guns, people say. The real solution, many believe, is to improve mental health care. Others dismiss gun availability as the cause of mass shootings and instead blame popular culture — namely video games, rap music, television and film — for glamorizing violence. I agree that both inadequate health care for the mentally ill and our culture’s obsession with violence are key problems that often contribute to heartbreaking tragedies like that of Sandy Hook. But to fixate on these issues undermines the discussion and actions that could ultimately put a stop to mass shootings.

Let’s be frank. It is a given that even the best mental health care system is occasionally going to allow a sick person to slip through its cracks. And although we can strengthen regulations on games and movies and music, it is impossible to erase all violent aspects of popular culture, especially in a society that so deplores censorship of any kind. Remember that little thing called the First Amendment? It’s even more prominent than the Second.

No, the action that will make the most progress in ending public, large-scale shootings is banning automatic- and semiautomatic-style weapons for good. Forget poor health care and a violent society. Fixing these problems does nothing so long as these kinds of weapons are legal. Because even that one mentally ill person who slides by the best mental health experts can’t kill 20 children in a matter of seconds without one.

Maybe if Lanza’s weapon had been a knife, or even a non-automatic pistol or rifle, more of the Sandy Hook victims would have survived. It would not have been possible for him to burst through doors, there would have been more time for teachers and children to hide, and there would have been more time for the police to arrive. But when he was wielding a semiautomatic? Those children and their teachers did not stand a chance.

Though I personally believe it is possible to make a case for banning all guns, I’m not sure it’s prudent to argue for that at this time. But no civilian citizen needs an automatic or semiautomatic weapon. These weapons are not necessary to fulfill the requirements of gun supporters, because they are not necessary for hunting or self-protection and should not be protected by the Second Amendment right to bear arms. These kinds of weapons did not exist when the Second Amendment was passed. And I would challenge the commonly held notion that the Second Amendment legitimizes gun ownership — a person’s right to bear arms does not surpass a child’s right to grow up. Yet, regardless of how one interprets the Right to Arms Clause, there is simply no viable argument against banning the types of weapons that killed the victims listed above.

As a nation, we are certainly talking about the tragedies of the past year. Photographs of the victims — and, unfortunately, of their murderers — are everywhere. Donations continue to pour in for the families and friends of the Sandy Hook victims, and for those of the victims of similar events all over the country. But it is not enough. Yes, we can bemoan the losses and cry and shake our heads. We can complete 26 acts of kindness in honor of the victims, and we can rant about whatever cause we blame for the massacre. But until we seriously advocate a nation-wide ban on automatic-style weapons, and until we pass the necessary legislation, the deaths of the past year occurred in vain. We will have to live with the knowledge that, while the self-indulgent cling to their supposed rights, children will lose their lives.

Policemen encircled a group of burka-clad women and their children peacefully protesting the unjust detention of relatives in Buraidah, Saudi Arabia two weeks ago. The women then were carted off to jail simply for asking for the release of their loved ones jailed without trials or hearings.

The U.S. is a strategic and economic ally of Saudi Arabia and has failed to speak out against human rights abuses in the country

In a country that has outlawed protests, citizens’ reaction to the arrests was shocking. In the incredibly conservative city of Buraidah, where the women were arrested, men took to the streets to protest their arrest and detention.

The protest by a small group of women sparked a rare expression of political dissent.

After the strong reaction, the government released the women and children but did not comment on the condition of their loved ones.

These protests are especially important given the Saudi Arabia’s guardianship laws that legally define women as children under the care of their husbands or fathers.

Women, who are not allowed to travel without a male companion, risked torture and imprisonment to ask for simple information regarding detained relatives.

In October 2010, local journalist Fahd al-Jukhaidib, was arrested and lashed merely for reporting on a protest. Many others have been detained for years for participating in peaceful protests.

The U.S. has not taken direct diplomatic action to support the protests, despite being active in recent human rights efforts in Egypt and Syria. Ignoring violations in Saudi Arabia undermines our efforts in other Arab countries because we are seen as playing favorites with our allies.

The relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia has been strained by oil concerns and human rights violations. President Barack Obama took significant steps in advocating for greater human rights in the region during the Arab Spring.

In early 2011, Obama publicly called for the resignation of Egypt’s leader Hosni Mubarak and recently recognized Syria’s revolutionary government.

But Obama is in a dilemma over Saudi Arabia. As the kingdom is one of our trading partners, the U.S. has been wary of criticizing the Saudi regime and calling for increases in human rights.

We cannot afford to be passive any longer. When the people of a repressed nation call out for the most basic access to political and judicial liberties, it is our duty to join the call.

Last year, the Arkansas pitching staff posted an ERA of 2.83 and carried the Razorback baseball team to a College World Series appearance.

This year, junior right-handed pitcher Ryne Stanek and senior left-hander Randall Fan have two of the weekend starting positions, said Chad Crunk, assistant media relations director.

In his sophomore season, Stanek started 17 games and finished the year with an 8-4 record and a 2.82 ERA. He struck out 83 batters in 92.2 innings and held opposing hitters to a .229 batting average.

Stanek was named a preseason All-American by Perfect Game and Collegiate Baseball.

Fant pitched in 15 games last season, 14 of which he started. He finished the season with a 2-3 record and a 3.27 ERA.

The final starting role could be filled by junior Brandon Moore, redshirt senior Trent Daniel, junior Barrett Astin or freshman Trey Killian.

Moore pitched in 19 games last season, 26 as a reliever, and posted a 5-2 record with three saves and a 2.43 ERA. He only allowed 11 walks in 81.1 innings and held opponents to a .230 batting average.

Daniel started four games and pitched in 17 out of the bullpen last season. He finished with a 2-0 record with one save and a 5.06 ERA.

Astin pitched in a team-leading 32 games, 29 in relief, and had a 3-5 record and a 1.99 ERA. His team-high 11 saves were the third highest single-season total in school history.

Killian finished his senior season of high school with a 8-1 record with a .88 ERA and 138 strikeouts. He pitched 10.1 innings in two games during the Cardinal-White series and posted a .87 ERA with 10 strikeouts.

The three pitchers that do not earn a starting spot will join junior Colby Suggs and senior Tyler Wright in the bullpen.

Suggs appeared in 30 games last season and finished the year with a 7-1 record with a 1.38 ERA. He set a new Arkansas single-season record for fewest runs allowed when pitching at least 30 innings by giving up just six runs during the season.

Suggs held opponents to a .203 batting average and struck out 36 batters in 39 innings. He was named a preseason All-American by Perfect Game, the NCBWA and Collegiate Baseball.

Wright pitched in 16 games last season, posting a 1-0 record with a 2.60 ERA. He held opposing batters to a .234 average.

Senior Cade Lynch and sophomore Chris Oliver will also potentially get some work out of the bullpen.

As a junior, Lynch appeared in 21 games, posting a 3-1 record, two saves and a 2.11 ERA. He held the opposition to a .180 batting average and struck out 46 batters in 47 innings of work.

Oliver pitched in 11 games as a freshman, one as the starter. He had a 1-0 record with a 3.86 ERA.