January 09, 2007
Great moments in public education

Alex Coberly, the principal of Seattle's Whittier Elementary School was placed on administrative leave last month under mysterious circumstances. The mystery has now been solved, today's P-I reports. Coberly had been arrested for indecent exposure "Principal's a flasher, police say":

he had exposed himself to women on several occasions in the past five or six years, the [police] report said. He exposed himself only to strangers, and only while driving his car, according to the report.
Coberly apparently wants to go back to work:
Coberly was very concerned he'll lose his job at Whittier Elementary over the criminal misdemeanor charge.

"There is no connection between this incident and his job," [Coberly's attorney] said. "It does not involve any children, and it does not involve his work."

Raise your hand if you would want Coberly to be your kid's principal.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 09, 2007 10:38 AM | Email This
1. So his lawyer using the same logic would argue that if he raped a 30 year old women he should be able to continue as a principal because it didn't involve children. Watch the WEA protect this scumbag.

Posted by: swassociates on January 9, 2007 10:36 AM
2. This is just another example of secular progressive moral relativism. Remember Clinton, that was a private personal matter and did not affect his job performance? Although, my recollection is an ambassador was keep waiting for Clinton. This sleeze is a terrible example for children. Kick his sorry butt to the curb. Swassaociates is right, he will have a full complement of legal aid. This is what is so wrong with the current insitutional structure. It is impossible to get rid of incompetants and down right dangerous people. One possible scenario is a resignation with a closed file, so that the next school district in another state knows nothing of the problems.

Posted by: WVH on January 9, 2007 10:47 AM
3. Absolutely beyond belief. I'm sure the same consideration would be given to someone who attended a KKK or pro-traditional marriage rally. The difference, of course, is one is illegal, the others are the wrong side of PC. Different thought and you get the boot, a criminal, then you are suitable material to be responsible for kids.

But please remember, and never forget Its for the kids!

Posted by: Right said Fred on January 9, 2007 10:55 AM
4. If you want to make any sort of dent into the power of the WEA and the public schools monopoly, this guy should be able to go back to his job. If that doesn't p*ss-off every conservative and middle-of-the-road voter in the state than nothing will. It has to get worse before it's going to get better.

Posted by: EssPea on January 9, 2007 10:59 AM
5. Agree with almost everything you said Right Said Fred. Although, the KKK's speech rights are protected by the First Amendment. They have advocated violence against specific groups. They are in a diferent category than pro-life groups, for example, that do not advocate violence. Probably, a teacher or principal who is an active member of that group could be dismissed. The point is that certain viewpoints are prevalent in schools. Probably, non-PC thinks are more likely to be hassled by fellow staff.

Posted by: WVH on January 9, 2007 11:03 AM
6. EssPea,

The problem is that one is dealing with children. The secular progressives are famous for using individuals and groups to make their ideological point, especially if it costs the secular progressive on an individual level nothing. Charen's "useful idiot" label describes how secular progressives operate. My thesis is because of Clinton, scores of teens now view oral sex as not sex. What kind of message does this sleeze send to children? I just heard a brain dead parent on the news say I hope he gets treatment. Well, I hope he gets treatment in jail.

Posted by: WVH on January 9, 2007 11:10 AM
7. WVH - I was using extreme examples more that in the SP mind not being PC is worse than any crime.

And now the concept that any bad/illegal behavior (other than being conservative) is some kind of disease that can be treated is the new fad. Soon we can get rid of all prisons and replace them with mental hospitals and reeducation camps.

Posted by: Right said Fred on January 9, 2007 11:18 AM
8. No hands going up right about now.

(His lawyer must be beyond embarrassed about having to "sell" this one.)

Posted by: Michele on January 9, 2007 11:18 AM
9. Send him to Grahm Hill Elementary. They seem to be full of apologist types.

Posted by: blah on January 9, 2007 11:19 AM
10. I posted last night some of the "highlights" from the PI blog on this issue:


Lots of concern for the principal even though it was know he drank and used drugs.

Posted by: AndrewsDad on January 9, 2007 11:26 AM
11. ...And he had just started to get his life together!!!

Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on January 9, 2007 12:22 PM
12. Thanks for the links andrews dad. I remember back when I was in HS. (ok many moons ago)

If a teacher was caught walking out of one of the two local taverns, they were questioned by admin why they were there. Small town, influence of students etc. Most teachers lived in bigger city 25 miles away, and could socialize there and never been seen by the kids they taught.

Now we have Teacher/Flasher/principals. Doesn't some of the protectors(WEA) wanna know what that pervert is thinking about when he has to disipline a teenage girl. Do you think he is "thinking" like a Father or a Flasher. Would make me wonder.

But then again, there is not much dispipline in schools except pink slips or detention.

Posted by: Chris on January 9, 2007 12:27 PM
13. Hey, guys, lighten up. After all, IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!! Maybe he could contribute to their sex education classes...

Posted by: katomar on January 9, 2007 12:28 PM
14. Chris: How much you wanna bet he's a proponent of spanking?

Posted by: Katomar on January 9, 2007 12:30 PM
15. Kat @14

LOL I bet he has a big paddle with holes drilled in it, like ole Tyler did. (had to be there to know who tyler was, besides a drunk)

Posted by: Chris on January 9, 2007 01:10 PM
16. Seattle School Death Spiral.

1. Low standards and expectations.
2. Parents are taking their kids out of Seattle schools and sending them to private schools.
3. School Closures.

Just resign, slip away and resurface in a year or two in Spokane.

Posted by: Marmstro on January 9, 2007 01:17 PM
17. Considering the decision about firing a pickle-waving Spokane deputy sheriff the principal will probably get a promotion:

"A sheriff's detective can't be fired solely for exposing himself at a coffee stand, Spokane County's Civil Service Commission ruled Monday."

Full article here: http://tinyurl.com/y6ksbz

Posted by: Tyler Durden on January 9, 2007 01:21 PM
18. I noticed in the news story about this that he claims he has an "addiction". Seems every excuse for abhorrent behavior is based on that person having an addiction and we are supposed to feel better about it because of that addiction. Somehow turning it around and portraying himself as a victim.

If he is retained as principal there will be a parent revolt.

Posted by: Palouse on January 9, 2007 02:17 PM
19. WEA won't defend him, because he is an administrator, not a teacher. I'm a teacher, and if he got fast tracked to principal from substitute in four years... that's strange.

Posted by: Taylor Scott on January 9, 2007 02:57 PM
20. I am seconding the comments of blah @9, the place for this guy is Graham Hill elementary. They dodged a bullet on the school closings anyway, so it's only fair that they have to bear the diversity burden of having a flasher principal.

And to anyone who says this man should be fired, how insensitive. flashers have feelings and rights too. Try to be more open minded.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 9, 2007 04:01 PM
21. It will have to get worse before it gets better?

Excuse me, it is worse!

Posted by: Snuffy on January 9, 2007 05:19 PM
22. Don't let him teach driver ed and have him teach anatomy. From each... to each.

Posted by: Huey on January 9, 2007 05:30 PM
23. Still trying to figure out how one flashes someone from a car. Either Coberly has a future in porn, or he's driving a fishbowl.

Posted by: Organization Man on January 9, 2007 08:28 PM
24. Snuff @ 21,

Apparently not bad enough if we are even having a convesation about this perv.

Posted by: EssPea on January 9, 2007 08:56 PM
25. Hands staying right where they are, thank yoo! (Over my eyes.)

Posted by: starboardhelm on January 9, 2007 08:59 PM
26. #16 is correct. Even in jest, I wouldn't assign this creep to a job around children. He has admitted to flashing, so the innocent till proven guilty crap is out. We don't know all the facts. Has there been other instances like date rape or child fondling that he won't admit to, particularly if he is lawyered up? Does society really want him to have power over the vulnerable?
Then there is the issue of the effectiveness of treatment for individuals with sexual deviancies. How effective is that?
I believe in redemption and that people can go on with their lives. I just believe he needs another occupation, away from children and the vulnerable.
This will probably get another 50 families out of the district.

Posted by: WVH on January 9, 2007 10:40 PM
27. Org Man: Here's how one flashes from a car---
when I was 14 and walking home from junior high school in Los Angeles back in the 70's, a man drove up and stopped next to where I was walking. No one was around and I was walking alone. He stopped to ask me directions. When I looked into the car to respond, as I was telling him how to get to where he asked to go, I eventually noticed he was "holding" himself and "going through the motions" (is that clear enough?). I was shocked and grossed out that anyone would do that and immediately turned around and walked away. Fortunately, he drove off. I didn't know enough to report it to the police and didn't tell my parents because I was too embarrassed. I wish I'd had the presence of mind to get a license plate # and report him to the authorities, but was so shocked at the time.
That's how it happens.
And I assure anyone---that kind of creep belongs nowhere near kids. Or anyone, really. He needs some serious help.

Posted by: Michele on January 10, 2007 01:53 AM
28. ..and btw, parents at that school should not stand for this guy to stay at their school (or the district, for that matter) for even one more day. Not one more day.

Posted by: Michele on January 10, 2007 01:58 AM
29. get this alleged perp scum out now. he's lucky he has union protection and liberal sympathies in today's society.

years ago, some enterprising dads would have had him slip on a banana peel in the parking lot. he would have been cured in a minute. and nobody saw anything, as neighbors say.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 10, 2007 06:25 AM
30. The difference between Seattle and Virginia!


Posted by: Right said Fred on January 10, 2007 07:41 AM
31. So what are you all complaining about? The district suspended him and will surely fire him once he is convicted (if he doesn't resign first). Presumably they would be at legal risk to actually fire him before he is found guilty. But the article says he's not working, so what's the problem?

Posted by: Bruce on January 10, 2007 10:11 AM
32. At least one problem, Bruce, is that he confessed. Yet the union (which is probably paying for this lawyer who is ridiculously claiming that his problem shouldn't bother the parents for have anything to do with well-being of their kids) will try to keep him from getting fired, and he's right now home BEING PAID for work he's not doing for a job that he belongs nowhere near. In the real world (like at our family's business, for instance) he'd be off the payroll YESTERDAY.

Posted by: Misty on January 10, 2007 10:21 AM
33. The problem is the difficulty in firing dangereous or incompetent school staff. I don't know if this information is current, but in NYC a couple of years ago, it costs a minimum of $150,000 and took at least three years to get rid of one staff member. Before the process of firing began, there were numerous supporting memos and attempts to change the behavior. That folks is what is wrong with the system. Oh, by the way, Bruce, any problem with the morality of the situation. Or, as a secular progressive, should we just be more tolerant?

Posted by: WVH on January 10, 2007 10:35 AM
34. Wow!... I am honestly impressed that you hill-billies can read and write.

Posted by: Adam hates conservatives on January 10, 2007 04:17 PM
35. The best part is that now all you products of inbreeding are now looking up words in your dictionaries to combat my words.

Posted by: adam hates conservatives on January 10, 2007 11:53 PM
36. Adam:

I generally don't recommend ritalin, but stop by the office of the school nurse and see if they can't help your condition.

Posted by: WVH on January 11, 2007 12:42 AM
37. Principals are not members of the WEA. They are administraters. His lawyer is from a private company. The douche-bag will never be a principal again. He's kaput. He's a Michael-Richards exit.

Posted by: GooseMan Lake on January 13, 2007 10:02 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?