Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Morning News | What Stinks? »

Tuesday, January 9, 2007

Principal Exposed

posted by on January 9 at 8:44 AM

The principal at North Seattle’s Whittier Elementary School has been charged with indecent exposure. Alex Coberly has been the principal at Whittier for three years—and according to police he’s admitted to flashing his junk at unsuspecting women for a lot longer than that. Coberly has been placed on leave, not fired, and charged with a criminal misdemeanor, not a felony. From this morning’s PI:

According to police reports, Coberly admitted to exposing himself in early November to a 24-year-old woman who was riding in a car next to his on Aurora Avenue North in Northgate.

The woman told police she was “shocked and offended” and called 911 to report the man’s description and license-plate number.

When police later confronted him, Coberly said he had exposed himself to women on several occasions in the past five or six years, the report said. He exposed himself only to strangers, and only while driving his car, according to the report.

The November incident spurred him to seek counseling, the report said.

Should Coberly lose his job? No one has accused of him of flashing a minor and it’s not like he drives his car down the school’s halls. Still, a sex-crazed flasher for a grade school principal? Here’s Coberly’s lawyer in the PI:

“There is no connection between this incident and his job,” Vogel said. “It does not involve any children, and it does not involve his work.”

I’m not sure where I come down on this. As a sex advice perfeshuhnal, I reject the notion that someone’s life and livelihood should be utterly destroyed because he did something stupid and sexually transgressive—even if, as in this case, the sexual transgression was rightly criminal. Men that expose themselves to women have issues; they get off on intimidating, shocking, and—visually at least—assaulting women. That, as the counselors say, is not okay. Coberly needs counseling to help him control his impulses and to get a grip on his issues with women. He also needs to understand—to be made to understand—that his behavior exists on a continuum of sexual violence directed at women. And that’s not okay. But flashers are not rapists. As sex crimes go, well, let’s just say there’s a reason Coberly has only been charged with a misdemeanor.

But as a parent of a kid in a gradeschool, well, I’m pretty con men or women that have difficultly controlling their inappropriate sexual impulses working in schools.

RSS icon Comments

1

Would you want your kid going to a school where the principal was a weeny wagger?

Posted by jeff | January 9, 2007 9:12 AM
2

Where's Pee Wee Herman to weigh in on this when you need him ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 9, 2007 9:22 AM
3

In the real world, this guy would have been fired a long time ago.

Posted by Fnarf | January 9, 2007 9:27 AM
4

Perhaps another way to think about this is what the prinipal's level of respect for women is. Someone who, as you correctly note, gets off on "intimidating, shocking, and ... assaulting women" for his own pleasure, doesn't strike me as someone who treats women with a great deal of respect. In which case, is he really someone who should be charged with the care of young female minds?

Irrespective of whether he's a physical danger to his students, having exhibited so plainly an overt disrespect for women strikes me as making him manifestly unsuited to be a leader to half of his student population.

Posted by Shakespeare's Sister | January 9, 2007 9:33 AM
5

Guy's got issues. Should have been fired, charged with a felony, registered as a sex offender, etc. etc. etc.

But he's a guy who garners respect in the community so he get's a slap on the wrist.

Posted by seattle98104 | January 9, 2007 9:38 AM
6

I'm sure it won't affect his ability to do his job. I mean, children would never let a little thing like that diminish their respect for an authority figure. They certainly won't make up little songs about the principal waving his private parts from his car window, or give him a nickname like "Principal Exposerly" or anything like that. That would just be immature.

Posted by flamingbanjo | January 9, 2007 9:40 AM
7

Is anyone here the least bit concerned about his co-workers who may be women? How are they supposed to feel when he's flashing his manstick to them?

Perhaps a little sexual harrassment suit will finally do the trick.

Posted by NewtoSeattle | January 9, 2007 9:43 AM
8

Just thought y'all might enjoy this blog, comprehensively detailing "Teacher Trash.".

Loads of fun and sadness.

Posted by horatiosanzserif | January 9, 2007 9:49 AM
9

Not just female coworkers, but female subordinates. You can be sure that most of the teachers at the school are women and they all answer to him. For that reason alone he should resign or be fired.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 9, 2007 9:52 AM
10

As sex crimes go, well, let’s just say there’s a reason Coberly has only been charged with a misdemeanor.

Yeah, and it's because we don't take sex crimes against women seriously.

Posted by Oneiros Dreaming | January 9, 2007 10:00 AM
11

I'm still trying to work out the mechanics of exposing yourself to other drivers while driving yourself. Does he just drive around without pants, and a few women noticed?

I'd like some details about what actually happened before making any judgments.

Posted by BC | January 9, 2007 10:09 AM
12

I felt the same way when Brittany flashed her vagina at me ----God how do I survive. My male co workers were even more troubled as they like her music and she was a role model.

And the bare tits that are everywhere --- what an assault on my person. To say nothing of my co workers who are just strung out most days from over exposure to female tits. Or even the prospect of such exposure.

Get real, Dan, you are a real wilted queer pansy. I know dozens of gay men who would offer to meet the guy, do an expert commentary of his junk, take good pix and maybe make him famous on the net.

How come all the prudes and uptight petty bourgeoise on the Stranger slog? You people need to go back to the Concerned Women of America site where they will be equally shocked at the sighting of a penis except late of night under the covers in the dark.

And God forbid any woman in today Seattle admits that they like dick, and they would take a good look and whistle out loud and maybe give they guy a phone number.

Posted by sammy | January 9, 2007 10:13 AM
13

I was thinking the same thing as Keshmeshi and Newtoseattle: screw the kids, what about the cow orkers? Principal is a management job. Not even Michael on The Office could get away with this. I repeat: should have been fired a long time ago.

Posted by Fnarf | January 9, 2007 10:15 AM
14

The guy obviously has a mental disconnect on a pretty basic level. Who thinks to themselves "Gee I work at an elementary school. Hmmm wonder if I should expose myself while driving down the street? Yeah, why not! What could POSSIBLY happen".

He should lose his job just due to the STUPIDITY he showed! Let alone the assult portion of it since a kid in a car could have seen him along with the women.

Posted by Andrew | January 9, 2007 10:22 AM
15

seattle 98104--indecent exposure is a misdemeanor--it doesn't matter who you are. he's not getting special treatment by not getting a felony. also, the administrative leave is just a prelude to firing--the school is just making sure its ducks are in a row for when it does fire him, so it won't face a wrongful termination suit or anything like that.


of course, it's nice to see the ol' lynch mob mentality alive on the message board. demonize the sex offenders! make it a felony so they can't vote! (washington can proudly say it caught up to its southern sister states by joining the jim crow tradition of disenfranchising felons--and indeed, the tradition started as a jim crow ploy to disenfranchise blacks.) lock 'em up--we need more prisoners and prisons!


seriously, the dude is going to be fired, will pay a fine, be on probation, and will have to attend court-ordered counseling. is sending him to prison for a year really going to accomplish anything? is it worth the extra $30,000 of taxpayer money? is that really more of a deterrent than the shame we heap upon anyone whose transgression is sexual? and, really, how much good are rational deterrents for behavior that is compulsive? look at our drug war.

Posted by ronald | January 9, 2007 10:40 AM
16

The difference is that his sexual transgression was criminal and violated the private space of others. We have teachers and adminstrators who are outed for posing nude, or exposed as BDSM enthusiasts, or for keeping racy blogs. Those are quite different from publicly exposing yourself to unwilling audiences.

Posted by Gloria | January 9, 2007 10:45 AM
17

@ rondald

you're comparing protecting individuals from sexual predators to the drug war? puh leaze.

Posted by seattle98104 | January 9, 2007 11:43 AM
18

how much good are rational deterrents for behavior that is compulsive?

Sex crimes have very real consequences for its victims, unlike drugs which primarily ruin the lives of the people who abuse them. If flashing, groping, molestation, and rape are "compulsive," then society has even more of a reason to lock up the offenders -- so they can't harass or hurt anyone else.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 9, 2007 12:02 PM
19

Ronald is right. Principal Pee Pee will certainly be shown the door over his distracted driving incident. Does anybody seriously think he won't?

Posted by J.R. | January 9, 2007 12:35 PM
20

An 11 yo 5th grader who exposed himself to a girl at school could be arrested as a juvenile offender and ordered by a juvenile judge to undergo a psychological evaluation and subsequently be labeled a sexual deviant by a court evaluator. Such a label could follow that kid the rest of his life and would impact his interactions with authorities directly until age 18 at minimum.

This is the reality of our current society and legal system.

No joke. Even if you feel punishment by labeling is too harsh for a 5th grader, or a 4th grader, or a 3rd grader, we cannot risk any kids thinking that non-consensual sexual interaction of any kind is acceptable.

It's cruel and unreasonable to expect children to think through the reasoning that there a difference between an adult showing its genitals uninvited to another adult and showing its genitals to a elementary school student.

Even though the man is charged with a misdemeanor, a municipal court judge could order him to undergo a psychological evaluation and make a legal finding based on that evaluation. He'll get some kind of probation, but if he doesn't do the treatment the court asks for he could do up to a year in jail.

All that aside, once the students at a school start talking about a principal's penis, his ability to be an effective leader is shot. One thing any parent the Seattle schools system knows is that the principal has a major impact in setting the tone for an elementary school.

Posted by mirror | January 9, 2007 12:54 PM
21

in response to sammy's asinine post, as a woman who is a self-admitted dick-lover that has also been the victim (yes, VICTIM) of someone exposing themselves to me on multiple occasions outside my home, yes, i do consider it an attack on my personal space and well-being and it is seriously disturbing on a number of levels.


i am not a prude and i don't mind seeing any type of genetalia when i want to, whether it's on the internet or in my bed. but i don't appreciate someone getting their sexual jollies from me when i am just tyring to go home; i am not a consensual partner for their fantasies! go home and wank off in the privacy of your own home, not in your car on my street! it is way more disturbing than you obviously can comprehend and it is unfortunate that there are people such as yourself with so little respect for others as to think that any person, male female gay or straight, should invite and encourage this kind of behavior. it is not a desire to have people appreciate their manhood that drives this, it is the shock and disgust and exposure that they like, and i find it offensive that you think that it's ok for a man to manipulate my mental state for his own pleasure.

Posted by kyd22 | January 9, 2007 12:56 PM
22

This guy should only be principal of the Jizz Mopping Academy.

Posted by him | January 9, 2007 1:03 PM
23

Ooh, are they hiring?

Posted by Will work for food | January 9, 2007 3:40 PM
24

@21-

I was also very tempted to give Sammy the digital finger, but he's just a fucking troll...I hope.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 9, 2007 3:42 PM
25

Heh heh. Fnarf @13 wrote "cow porker". heh heh.

Posted by Eric | January 9, 2007 4:34 PM
26

I feel like Dan does, this guy is not a monster. He has some serious issues and needs help. His life is down the tubes, shame, career loss, probation and fines are a enough. He fessed up, possibly even set himself up knowing he was losing it. Do we really need to hate the sick?? Can't we protect the victims,like the law provides and have some compassion for the guy too? It is likely he was abused too.

Posted by jessie | January 9, 2007 4:54 PM
27

I feel like Dan does, this guy is not a monster. He has some serious issues and needs help. His life is down the tubes, shame, career loss, probation and fines are a enough. He fessed up, possibly even set himself up knowing he was losing it. Do we really need to hate the sick?? Can't we protect the victims,like the law provides and have some compassion for the guy too? It is likely he was abused too.

Posted by jessie | January 9, 2007 4:54 PM
28

I feel like Dan does, this guy is not a monster. He has some serious issues and needs help. His life is down the tubes, shame, career loss, probation and fines are a enough. He fessed up, possibly even set himself up knowing he was losing it. Do we really need to hate the sick?? Can't we protect the victims,like the law provides and have some compassion for the guy too? It is likely he was abused too.

Posted by jessie | January 9, 2007 4:54 PM
29

Sammy here - not a troll

A gay nudist - who has discovered most straight ladies are as up tight about sex as any Puritan from 300 years ago.

Read these posts again ... the guy had his pants open, lady looked and got ashamed and shocked ---- blah, blah --- as crimes go, it is about as tame as pissing in the alley at midnight.

But then, we all know how much of America is controlled by the uptight mommies - and when it comes to sex, and all the taboo they can load onto the topic, who dares laugh?

Seattle's own Cowen Park used to have flashers - avoid at all cost - the indignation of seeing naked people outside the ___________ ( where is it ok up tight ladies???)

AS far as the digital finger, isn't that like flashing?

Posted by sammy | January 9, 2007 5:24 PM
30

And God forbid any woman in today Seattle admits that they like dick, and they would take a good look and whistle out loud and maybe give they guy a phone number.

Never gonna happen. Flashers have a couple common traits: abject ugliness and tiny dicks.

Read these posts again ... the guy had his pants open, lady looked and got ashamed and shocked ---- blah, blah --- as crimes go, it is about as tame as pissing in the alley at midnight.

I've seen guys relieving themselves and guys flashing their junk. The guys relieving themselves were minding their own business. The flashers were looking for women to visually assault. There is no doubt, especially since he was a serial flasher, that the asshat in question was driving around with his dick out waiting for an unsuspecting woman to look over. He gets off on visually assaulting women, period. Certainly, if flashing didn't offend or freak women out, he probably wouldn't get off on it, but then, if every woman consented to fuck every scummy asshole who crossed her path, then rapists would be out of business.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 9, 2007 6:42 PM
31

Well, hate to break it to the angry and offended, but the one flasher I saw was a 10, really a ten, all the way around.

Blond, bold, and just a total hunk. yes, about 10, not small at all.
Found him an hour after the flash .. we were in a park, dated for a year and married him. Whew, what a sex life we have had all these years. Dan would be proud and full of envy. Prudes remorse.

He is your daddy.

Posted by mamma | January 10, 2007 12:43 AM
32

I am a teacher at Whittier. I must say that Alex has been spying on me; I always felt uncomfortable around him. He made a lot of negative remarks about me. Now I know what his problem is.

Posted by hun | January 26, 2007 6:49 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).