The Supreme Court rejected an appeal yesterday from the Richmond Federal Appeals Court addressing a regulation issued by the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission banning advertisements for alcoholic beverages in college newspapers. The decision of the appeals court, which upheld the regulation as constitutional, was contested by the American Civil Liberties Union, which submitted the case to the Supreme Court.

The regulation forbids public and private Virginia college newspapers from publishing advertisements for alcoholic beverages, as well as printing certain words, such as “happy hour” and names of mixed drinks.

“The ABC Board promulgates regulations to carry out the provisions of the [Alcoholic Beverage Control Act] and to prevent illegal manufacture, sale, distribution and transportation of alcoholic beverages,” ABC spokesperson Jennifer Farinholt said.

The Collegiate Times and The Cavalier Daily challenged the ban in 2008, and the Virginia district courts ruled in their favor and found the regulation unconstitutional. The decision was appealed and then reversed by the appeals courts in Richmond.

“It’s unfortunate the Supreme Court decided not to take the case, especially with Samuel Alito, who, when he served in the appeals courts, ruled in favor of a newspaper in a similar case in Pennsylvania,” said Peter Velz, editor-in-chief of the Collegiate Times, Virginia Tech’s student newspaper. “We are optimistic, however, because the case has been remanded to the district court. The ban still lacks merit, and we will continue to fight.”

Rebecca Glenberg, legal director of the ACLU of Virginia, said the regulation is unconstitutional — for the government to regulate commercial speech, it must show that the ban directly and materially advances the interests of the government. In this case, the government claimed its interest is controlling underage drinking and binge drinking at universities, but the ACLU argues that there is no evidence that precluding alcohol advertisements from college newspapers is effective at achieving this goal.

“It discriminates against a narrow segment of the media, and even if the regulations are deemed constitutional at face value, they’re unconstitutional as specifically applied to The Cavalier Daily and the Collegiate Times because they have a readership primarily over the age of 21,” Glenberg said.

The case will return to district courts, where the ACLU will argue that the regulation unfairly discriminates against student newspapers and that because the specific readerships of The Cavalier Daily and the Collegiate Times are older than 21, the ban is not effective at furthering the interests of the government.

The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport uses magnetometers rather than the full- body scanners that the TSA is requiring in major airports to scan for materials. Photo courtesy Barbara Hutchinson.

Travelers flying in and out of Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport this Thanksgiving managed to avoid controversial security measures. The local airport is one of several small market airports that has not yet been required by the Transportation Security Administration to implement full-body scanning machines.

Thus far, the TSA has only mandated the full-body scans in 68 full-service airports across the country.

“They’ve been at fairly large airports or airports that have created some need before another airport,” said Barbara Hutchinson, executive director of the local airport.

The airport currently uses more conventional magnetometers to conduct bodily scans for suspicious material. If a traveler triggers the alarm and the cause cannot be found, he will be subject to a standard non-invasive pat down. If that fails to resolve the issue, the traveler will be subject to the more invasive “resolution pat-down” in a curtained area. To date, airport officials have only resorted to the resolution pat-down once.

Hutchinson said there are no immediate plans to introduce full-body scanners in the airport, noting that implementation could present logistical difficulties.

“It would take modifying our building,” Hutchinson said. “They couldn’t justify it tomorrow for next week.”

Still, some speculate that the full-body scanners could become a staple of airports nationwide by the end of next year.

“I think [Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport] is just an airport in waiting,” said John Whitehead, president and founder of the Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville-based civil liberties group involved in a lawsuit about the invasive nature of the new procedures.

Whitehead said that the local airport may be currently better than other regional options “if you don’t want strip search or invasive pat-downs.” But he also anticipates that the airport will soon be mandated to switch to full-body scans, indicating a larger problem nationwide.

“Under the Fourth Amendment, you don’t pat down American citizens or strip-search them, virtually or otherwise, unless they’re under reasonable suspicion for some sort of criminal activity,” Hutchinson said. “If you throw that out the window, you’re talking about police state tactics.”

Despite such controversy surrounding the scanners, a CBS News Poll conducted earlier this month revealed that four out of five Americans approve of the new security procedures.

The TSA remains confident in its decision to enforce the recent measures.

“We are seeking to strike the right balance between privacy and security,” TSA Administrator John Pistole said in a press release. “We all wish we lived in a world where security procedures at airports weren’t necessary, but that just isn’t the case.”

Despite a nationwide trend of increased doctorate degrees being awarded, the University has seen a decrease in awards during the past few years.

The number of doctorate degrees awarded to candidates from schools in the United States increased from 48,763 in 2008 to 49,562 in 2009, a rise of 1.6 percent, according to a recent survey by the National Science Foundation. During that same time frame, though, the University saw a decrease of 19.8 percent.

This discrepancy may be partially mitigated by the fact that the national increase during the past two years is actually much smaller compared to what it was in previous years. While doctorate awards rose from 43,381 in 2005 to 45,617 in 2006 — an increase of 5.15 percent — and 45,617 in 2006 to 48,130 in 2007 — an increase of 5.5 percent — last year’s study found a smaller increase; the number of doctorate awards rose from 48,130 in 2007 to 48,763 — an increase of only 1.3 percent.

Dave Wolcott, the University’s assistant vice president for Graduate Studies, said the number of doctorate degrees a university awards can depend on several factors, namely the economy because it has limited research funding and enrollment.

Concurrently, the University actually saw an increase in the number of doctorate degrees it award to candidates from 2007 to 2008, a jump from 259 degrees to 314 — an increase of 21 percent. In 2009, however, the University awarded only 262 degrees — a 19.8-percent drop.

In the wake of an unpromising job market, NSF spokesperson Bobbie Mixon also noted that the amount of research funding a school has also can affect the number of doctorate candidates it enrolls. Furthermore, some schools simply enroll fewer students and therefore enroll fewer doctoral candidates, Mixon said.

But at the same time, students often choose to continue their education in hopes of entering a more promising job market in the future. Mixon also noted that fields that were once popular have decreased in recent years, specifically non-practice oriented fields.

Mixon said NSF has employed its Survey of Earned Doctorates annually since 1953 to collect data on individuals who receive research degrees from accredited U.S. institutions.This year, the study looked at a record number of doctorate awards.

The nonprofit organization WikiLeaks published the first of a large cache of confidential communications between the United States State Department and embassies in more than 250 foreign countries last Sunday. Government officials have condemned the release as a threat to national security while supporters of the website — which describes itself as a human rights organization — argued for greater government transparency. The information contained in the communications deals with issues ranging from foreign policy in Iran to the private habits of Libya’s leader, Muammar al-Qadhafi.

Several University professors, many of whom have spent time working in U.S. foreign relations, condemned the website or downplayed the impact of its release.

“Right now it doesn’t offer any big surprises,” said William Quandt, vice provost for international affairs and former National Security Council staff member. But he added that people are still filtering the rush of information and that it could potentially change the tenor of future diplomatic communications.

Parsing through the papers
Although the cables do not appear to contain any shocking information about world diplomatic relations, Quandt said they still bring attention to current situations abroad, especially in the Middle East, by giving media a chance to focus on those issues.

Several major publications, including The New York Times and The Guardian, were given access to some of the diplomatic cables before they were posted to the WikiLeaks website.

Sunday’s release of 220 documents is only a small fraction of more than 250,000 WikiLeaks has promised to make public in the upcoming weeks. Still, it is unclear how much new information will be uncovered.

“The average guy is going to have trouble understanding a lot of it,” Law Prof. Robert Turner said, explaining that because large publications have reporters in countries around the world — and thus access to relevant local information — they are much more equipped to summarize the issues discussed in the cables.

Even so, information about factual events is touched by the officials writing the cables before the reporters ever lay eyes on them, making all reports subject to at least nominal suspicion. As a result, Quandt said the most important cables discuss U.S. foreign policy in Iran, as they show that several Middle Eastern countries are concerned about Iran’s ability to construct nuclear weapons and hope the United States will take action against Iran.

The most extreme voice pushing for such action, Quandt said, came from Saudi Arabia’s leader Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz who, according to one cable, hoped the United States would attack Iran.

Another notable issue is that U.S. diplomats were instructed to collect information on foreign leaders, Quandt said. Other situations discussed in the cables include South Korea’s push for a unified country and corruption within the Afghan government.

Classified information
Quandt said a notable absence in the leaked cables were ones deemed “top secret.” Government documents without this classification do not usually contain information that will likely put many lives at risk or do serious diplomatic damage, he explained.

“There was always an understanding that some classified information might go public, so much of it ends up being relatively routine information,” he said.

He also questioned whether the leak might distance foreign leaders and make future negotiations more difficult.

Americans need some perspective, he said. “What will this have changed six months from now? Will our relations with other countries be harmed? Will things go differently then they might have otherwise? Maybe, but not likely.”

Even the most reported information is not particularly surprising — leaders of vulnerable countries wish the United States would address Iran, and because their citizens probably are not as concerned, they might be somewhat reluctant to make those requests publicly.

But Quandt also left open the possibility that new information would emerge from the cables as more people gained access to them. He said, for example, the leak included more than a thousand cables from the Algerian embassy, which few people have yet had time to cover.

Turner said even if new information does not emerge, the banal nature of the leak is likely misleading.

“There’s a lot of sensitive information in there that doesn’t appear sensitive to most people,” he said. “This isn’t something for amateurs to play around with; real lives could be in danger because of [the leak.]”

Having worked in both national security and foreign relations, Turner said a cable that seems relatively harmless could easily provide a piece of information that, when combined with information from other sources, gives an enemy agent the identity or location of an American soldier, agent or communications worker.

Law Prof. John Moore, a former international law counselor for the State Department, agreed that the release would be a bombshell for the future of U.S. foreign policy because other nations would be less likely to trust the United States with sensitive information, thus harming American intelligence gathering.

“We will now have less candid discussions with other countries. We’ll have fewer opportunities to negotiate. Cables will always have to be suspect,” he said.

Although he found the WikiLeaks decision to release the cables inexcusable, Turner thought publications such as The New York Times were responsible for conveying the basic information to the public while working to ensure that it did not expose Americans to unnecessary danger. The Times reported that it forwarded documents to the Obama administration for review.

But History Prof. Philip Zelikow, who also was a former counselor for the State Department, expressed anger about the controversy surrounding media coverage of the leaks.

“With an indiscriminate cross-section of its cables now released, picked over by at least eight newspapers, none so far have turned up a smidgen of wrongdoing by the United States government,” he said.

Nevertheless, as the diplomatic world becomes increasingly dependent on computers to store sensitive files, the world is faced with a century-old question with a modern complexity: How well should the government be able to hide its actions — as documented in either cabinet or computer files — from citizens for which it is supposed to work?

Printed on the page opposite this editorial are the Honor Committee’s public case summaries for this term, released for the first time at the Committee’s meeting Sunday. By releasing the summaries, the Committee fulfills provisions of the “Right to Know” referendum, which was passed during this year’s University-wide elections and whose stipulations are now part of the Committee’s bylaws. For the amendment to be worthwhile, however, students must take the time to look through the summaries and consider the information being presented.

Alexander Cohen, graduate Arts & Science representative and a former Cavalier Daily opinion columnist, initially proposed the Right to Know amendment last fall to increase transparency and to serve as an educational tool for the University community. Prior to releasing public summaries, the Committee would simply state the verdict of recently tried cases each Sunday at its weekly meeting, Committee Chair Charles Harris said. But these summaries were extremely brief, usually only consisting of the accused student’s school and the case verdict. The new summaries, on the other hand, list the accused student’s school at the University, the person who reported the honor violation, jury composition, arguments from both sides of the case, the verdict and the jury’s decision for each of the three criteria for guilt — act, intent and triviality — if the student was acquitted. To protect identities, the position of the person who reported the honor violation — professor, teaching assistant or lecturer, for example — is disclosed in the summaries, but never his name. The summaries will be publicly available on the Committee’s website for four years.

Of course, to be valuable as an educational tool, these summaries must have enough detail to paint a realistic picture of an honor trial while not giving away any information that could reveal an accused student’s identity. When the Committee debated the Right to Know amendment, preliminary arguments against the public summaries focused on privacy issues. As a result, the Committee decided to allow the accused student to review the first draft of his summary and to raise any privacy concerns he may have. The Committee chair, accompanied by a legal counsel, is the last person to view the summaries and has the right to refuse publication if it does not meet the specified criteria for confidentiality.

These summaries are beneficial for three main reasons. First, they give students the opportunity to see how the honor code is applied to specific situations. Even though the summaries do not include in-depth information about how a possible offense meets — or does not meet — each of the criteria for guilt, the information provided still allows students to assess general trends. For example, the summaries include information about the composition of each jury — whether it was comprised entirely of randomly selected students, entirely Committee members or a mixed jury of both — which gives students the opportunity to gauge how different jury structures evaluate similar cases, in an aggregate sense. Second, listed verdicts serve as a barometer so students can gauge how often people are convicted and thus gain a clearer perspective on the honor system. Third, it provides a mechanism to open the honor system more to public scrutiny and to serve as a check on the Committee.

On the point of educational value, the summaries could be improved. More detail about the affirmative and negative arguments made regarding act, intent and triviality would give students a better sense of what constitutes a violation of any of those terms. That said, the Committee is correct to respect students’ privacy and to be extremely cautious about what information it can release. But allowing the accused student an opportunity to review the summary prior to release ought to give the Committee more flexibility to provide trial details without revealing his identity. Of course, there also are legal issues at play, but generally speaking, more specific information about how act, intent and triviality pertain to specific incidents could go a long way toward clarifying these definitions for students.

While flipping through news channels one day, I came across a CNN segment in which Wolf Blitzer showed the audience how to “dougie.” As I watched this aged news anchor jettison all semblance of journalistic integrity, I began to ponder why we watch the news. More and more, it seems as if the news is striving to entertain rather than to inform people about current events. In that same vein, it appears that the news is also trying to cater to certain ideological demographics in exciting new ways rather than simply presenting us with the mere facts of the day. This bias can present itself in many ways: lopsided debates, highlighting certain stories while burying others and sometimes just plain pandering to one ideology in particular. Our first reaction might be to decry this as the downfall of legitimate journalism, but we must remember that the reason this style of news exists is because there is a demand for it.

The Media Research Center published a report about the political leanings of journalists from varying types of media using data from the 2004 election. About 52 percent of individuals surveyed said they voted for Democrat John Kerry, while only 19 percent cast their votes for his opponent, Republican George W. Bush (the rest refused to disclose who they voted for). Unless all 52 percent of those journalists have a robotic demeanor that keeps them from letting their beliefs encroach on the impartiality of their work — which largely covers political issues — there must be at least some tinge of a liberal bias in the news media today.

Many scoff at the idea of media bias while others argue that saying there is “some tinge” of media bias is like claiming Mount Everest is a rather large hill. “There is an irrefutable liberal bias in the media,” first-year College student Katie Wymer said. “How do I deal with it? Largely by relying on Fox News and doing my own research to check the validity of what I hear.”

Sometimes this bias is overt. MSNBC, for example, is known for its liberal commentators, and Fox News is notorious for its conservative personalities. CNN, meanwhile, tries to remain in the center. It is pretty easy to see where these networks lie on the political spectrum. But how much does political bias in commentary affect the actual news?

This bias will — and often does — affect the types of stories that headline the news and the ones that are hardly mentioned. MSNBC spends an inordinate amount of time picking apart the excruciating minutiae of every Sarah Palin gaffe and Fox does the same thing with President Obama, yet CNN is criticized for enhancing Anderson Cooper’s hair. Of course, conservatives will be quick to point out that this bias is not just isolated to MSNBC, but permeates the media as a whole. Fox News is not a menacing entity trying to make every man, woman and child a hard-core, red-state Republican; it is merely conservatives’ oasis in the desert. Ratings suggest that Fox may not be so fringe after all. Fox News continually pounds MSNBC and most other cable news outlets on a nightly basis. Perhaps Fox News is so popular because — and I know this may frighten some of us — people like it. The ratings indicate an obvious demand for watching the often comedic histrionics of Glenn Beck. “Audiences often determine, unconsciously or otherwise, which content most adequately reflects their own partisan opinions,” third-year College student Leah Paisner said. “As subscription networks, the cable news stations cater to the biases of the paying viewers.” If people want to watch Beck for hours on end, who are we to judge? People spend hours watching American Idol and I am not aware of a seething undercurrent of angst stemming from that while Fox News is constantly berated on the grounds that it is warping the minds of our children and making the world unsafe for truth, justice and the American way.

Faux News, as its detractors so cleverly put it, is painted as the paragon of spin founded as the brainchild of an evil mastermind named Rupert Murdoch. Any clear-headed individual knows this claim is a bit exaggerated. People want to watch Fox News mainly because it presents a certain point of view that appeals to them. If you want a more liberal point of view, you have your options, and if you want a more conservative one, there are options as well. I have also discovered the key to eliminating all media bias; everyone who owns a television has it. If you do not like what you are seeing on the news and think it is overly biased, calm down and hit the big “power off” button. Hulu has better shows, anyway.

Pietro Sanitate’s column appears Tuesday in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at p.sanitate@cavalierdaily.com.

Virginia Tech sophomore running back David Wilson gashed the Cavalier defense for 148 rushing and receiving yards and two touchdowns. He singlehandedly outgained the entire Virginia backfield with 83 rushing yards. Photo by Grant Mathews.

BLACKSBURG — Poor tackling, careless penalties and untimely turnovers again doomed the Virginia football team as it fell to in-state rival Virginia Tech Saturday for the seventh consecutive season. The 37-7 rout marked the fourth consecutive loss for the Cavaliers — a disappointing end for coach Mike London’s first year at the helm of the program.

No. 13 Virginia Tech (10-2, 8-0), meanwhile, earned its 10th straight victory after beginning its 2010 campaign with back-to-back losses against Boise State and James Madison. With the win, the Hokies became the first team to go undefeated in ACC play since the 2000 Florida State squad.
“[The Hokies] are the measuring stick right now, and you’re humbled by the fact that that’s where you’ve got to go,” London said. “That’s what I aspire to be — a team that wins games and competes for championships.”

Virginia Tech relied heavily on its three-headed ground game to expose the Cavaliers’ defensive front-seven, which ranked 106th in the nation in stopping the run entering Saturday’s game. Redshirt junior tailback Darren Evans, redshirt sophomore tailback Ryan Williams and sophomore tailback David Wilson combined for 177 of the Hokies’ 201 rushing yards and four touchdowns.

The Hokie rushing attack struck first blood after an early defensive struggle. The Cavalier defense forced three-and-outs during each of Virginia Tech’s first three drives, but senior quarterback Marc Verica’s 14th interception on the season set up an easy Williams score from five yards out.

“It was just kind of a miscommunication between me and the wide receiver,” Verica said. “I thought he’d be a little more outside than he was. I wish we could’ve eliminated those things because I think we could’ve put points on the board early.”

One such missed opportunity came after Virginia’s opening 51-yard drive set up a 46-yard field goal attempt by junior place kicker Chris Hinkebein. With winds whipping around Lane Stadium, Hinkebein missed the field goal wide right.

Nevertheless, Virginia (4-8, 1-7 ACC) tried to recapture the momentum gained by its early defensive stands with a special teams gamble near midfield. Following the Hokies’ first touchdown, sophomore running back Torrey Mack rushed for 26 yards on three carries as the offense seemed to find its footing. On fourth-and-two from the Virginia 45-yard line, however, junior punter Jimmy Howell took the snap, rolled to his right and hit sophomore tight end Colter Phillips cutting toward the Virginia sideline. The Virginia Tech special teams unit stopped Phillips a yard shy of the first-down marker to give the Hokie offense solid field position.

“There’s an option to either kick the ball, or there’s an option to throw it to Colter,” London said. “We just didn’t see the coverage that was off, that it probably would have been a better decision to kick it.”

Four plays after the failed fake punt, senior quarterback Tyrod Taylor threw a screen pass to Wilson, who scampered 20 yards up the Virginia Tech sideline before diving into the end zone for a score. The Hokies continued to exploit the cracks in the Cavalier defense, as they went on to score on three of their next four offensive series en route to another dominating performance against the Cavaliers. Virginia Tech has now won 11 out of the teams’ past 12 meetings.

Trailing 37-0 with 2:59 remaining, redshirt freshman Ross Metheny — who replaced Verica with less than five minutes to play — completed an 11-yard touchdown pass to senior tailback Keith Payne to avoid Virginia’s first shutout loss to the Hokies since 2006.

The Metheny-led 72-yard drive marked the longest of the day for the Virginia offense, which was held to less than 300 yards of total offense for the first time this season. The Cavaliers especially struggled in third-down situations, converting on only 1-of-12 opportunities.

“It was really loud out there, and it was tough to communicate,” Payne said. “It just didn’t go our way. It just slipped away from us.”

Through recruiting, London hopes to lessen the on-field disparity between the Cavaliers and the Hokies.

“My second season has just started,” London said. “This is my opportunity to get into the homes, get in the faces of young men who have opportunities here. I’ll continue to talk about things the school can offer them. I’ll work tirelessly to attract young men who can help us on the field also.”

Monday, Nov. 22
Washington def. Virginia 106-63
Then-No. 13 Washington shot 58 percent from the field — and made 17-of-26 three-point attempts — to hand Virginia its most lopsided defeat since a 99-54 loss at North Carolina March 1, 2006. The Huskies’ 17 three-pointers marked the most ever by a Virginia opponent.

Virginia (3-3) trailed just 16-13 with 14:23 remaining in the first half, but Washington (4-2) unleashed an 18-2 run to extend its lead to 34-15 with 7:44 to go. The Huskies led 55-31 at the break and never loosened their grip the rest of the way, leading by as many as 48 with two minutes left in the game.

Junior guard Isaiah Thomas tallied 18 points to lead five Washington players in double figures. Virginia freshman guard Joe Harris led all scorers with 19 points to go along with seven rebounds.

Tuesday, Nov. 23
Virginia def. Oklahoma 74-56
Just 10 hours after its crushing loss to Washington, Virginia captured a wire-to-wire win against Oklahoma in a consolation round game. The 18-point margin of victory was the Cavaliers’ largest away from home since a 84-57 win against Albany in the first round of the 2007 NCAA Tournament.

Virginia jumped out to a 12-0 lead three minutes into the game en route to a 40-25 halftime advantage. The Sooners (3-3) cut the lead to 41-33 with 16:43 remaining, but the Cavaliers scored the next nine points to extend their lead to 17 with 14:27 left.

Senior forward Mike Scott led Virginia with a career-high 27 points. He also grabbed 15 boards and finished 13-for-15 from the foul line. Senior forward Will Sherrill scored 11 points and senior guard Mustapha Farrakhan chipped in 10. Sophomore point guard Jontel Evans totaled six assists compared to zero turnovers, adding three steals.

Wednesday, Nov. 24
Wichita State def. Virginia 70-58
Virginia squandered a 16-point first-half lead to fall to Wichita State in the Maui Invitational’s fifth-place game. Senior center J.T. Durley paced the Shockers with 17 points in the two schools’ first-ever meeting.

The Cavaliers commanded a 20-4 lead with 12:36 left in the first half, but Wichita State (4-1) then went on a 20-4 run of its own to tie the game at 24 with 5:09 remaining in the half. After clinging to a 44-43 advantage with 12:33 left in the game, the Shockers went on a 9-0 run to open up a 10-point lead. Virginia never came within eight points of Wichita State the rest of the night.

Scott recorded his third double-double of the season with 16 points and a game-high 10 rebounds. He now ranks ninth on Virginia’s all-time list with 21 career double-doubles.

Ten players scored for the Shockers, and their bench outscored Virginia’s by a 28-2 margin.

With the loss, the Cavaliers finished sixth in the eight-team tournament.

Monday, Nov. 29
Virginia def. No. 15 Minnesota 87-79
Virginia used a red-hot second-half performance to knock off No. 15 Minnesota last night in the first game of the ACC-Big 10 Challenge. After trailing 39-29 at halftime, the Cavaliers, who now have a 4-3 record, outscored the Gophers (6-1) 58-40 in the final 20 minutes of play. The game marked coach Tubby Smith’s first non-conference home loss during his four-year tenure at Minnesota.

Senior forward Will Sherrill buried a three-pointer six-and-a-half minutes into the second half to pull the Cavaliers ahead for the first time since its 3-0 start during the first half. A layup by junior center Colton Iverson put the Gophers back on top, but freshman guard Joe Harris responded with a jumper that put Virginia up for good.

The Cavaliers shot an impressive 76.9 percent (10-13) from three-point range and 83.3 percent (25-30) from the foul line. They also outrebounded the Gophers — a team with four players standing at least 6 feet, 10 inches — 32-30.

Harris led the way for Virginia with 24 points on 8-of-12 shooting. Senior guard Mustapha Farrakhan came off the bench to tally a career-high 23 points, making 4-of-5 three-point attempts. Senior forward Mike Scott contributed 17 points and 12 boards for his third consecutive double-double.

Minnesota played without two injured starters — point guard Al Nolen and forward Rodney Williams. Junior forward Trevor Mbakwe paced the Gophers with 18 points, 11 rebounds and five blocks.

—compiled by Nick Eilerson

Junior forward Chelsea Shine leads Virginia in rebounding, blocks and steals. She ranks second with 9.3 points per game. Photo by Grant Mathews.

The Virginia women’s basketball team concluded play in the 2010 Paradise Jam with a 59-55 win against No. 21 TCU. Junior forward Chelsea Shine scored 20 points, and redshirt senior guard Paulisha Kellum and sophomore guard Lexie Gerson both contributed 10 points during the game.

After finishing the first half of play knotted at 24 apiece, Virginia (4-3) built an eight-point lead for 40-32 halfway through the second half. TCU (3-3) battled back, however, tying the game at 46-46 with 5:43 remaining in the game. After trading baskets for the next four minutes, the Cavaliers seized a 54-53 lead with 1:04 left that they never relinquished.

Virginia recorded five more rebounds than the Horned Frogs — 35-30 — and shot 40 percent from the field.

The Cavaliers previously lost to No. 10 West Virginia 57-43 last Friday and No. 17 Iowa State 66-48 last Thursday during Paradise Jam play.

The squad will next play seventh-ranked Ohio State in Columbus Thursday as part of the ACC/Big Ten Challenge. Game time is set for 7 p.m.

—compiled by Allen Kha