The Sacramento Bee is carrying a column in which the theme is that the one person who came out smelling like a rose from the Katehi affair was Katehi's lawyer. Yet - unless Katehi was refusing the advice of her lawyer - dragging the process out was a terrible strategy. We have no reason to think that Katehi wasn't in fact following the advice of her lawyer. So it sure seems as though she was getting bad advice. Does anyone really think that Napolitano & Co. would not have preferred a quiet resignation? Does anyone really think that all the bad PR that came out of a 100+ page investigatory report was a good thing for Katehi? Maybe the lawyer told the columnist a self serving tale. Who knows? Just an example: The columnist seems to think that the fact that Katehi retained her (tenured) faculty appointment was a great victory. But it was a tenured position so of course she retained it. The columnist seems to think that dragging out the process preserved Katehi's reputation as an academic and that therefore she will be able to raise money (by which presumably he means research grants). What a weird idea!