Comments on: Elementary School Principal Sexually Assaults Women, Seeks to Keep Job

By: H

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:16:08 +0000

My daughter was at Whittier for kindegarten and first grade. Mr Coberly was liked by students and parents. He was a young, hip, fun principal. He was helpful to me as a single parent when financial issues stood in the way of child care and my job. I have friends that had met his family socially. We have kids the same age. Having said all that, learning of this ‘habit’, and recently reading about his lawer mentioning his ‘mental condition’ I would not be okay with him ever being involved with students. I have read other comments about this elsewhere, and good points were raised. Sexual perversion escalates over time. That is fact. How long would it take before it became a danger to children? As sad as we all have been about this, I would never support a rehire by the Seattle School District. I find it hard to believe it was even an issue. I am sad for his family and the embarassment they are dealing with. I wish them only the best, and am left feeling delusioned about people in trusted positions. YES educators are held to a higher moral code. This is not like a teacher who smokes cigarettes or drinks too much on weekends, or smokes pot at home, or cheats on their spouse. Just because it didn’t happen at the school, doesn’t mean it wouldn’t affect the Whittier family. How would parents explain THAT to their kids that learn this information about their beloved Mr C?

By: theobromophile

theobromophile — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:23:14 +0000

Great point, Snow Queen.

If you say “grope,” most people get the idea that it’s unwanted. While dictionary.com is hardly the OED, it’s definition (first!) of “fondle” is: to handle or touch lovingly, affectionately, or tenderly; caress: to fondle a precious object; to fondle a child. As a law student, I would certainly think that the prosecutor should argue that, if the defendant wants to say he fondled the woman, he better well PROVE that it was with affection.

By: J

Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:39:49 +0000

It’s either ok or it’s not ok to show your penis to people without their consent. This is not a grey area. That some people attempt to make excuses for this guy scares me. These are probably the same people who think rape is ok in some instances.

I started to write: if they liked the guy the correct approach would have been to like the guy, but dislike his actions…

but -how can you “like” someone who shows his penis to people without their consent? This guy does not understand boundries. Why would you want someone who does not understand boundries to be in charge of children?

By: snowqueen

snowqueen — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:15:36 +0000

if you are interested here’s a link to the article: http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/5/499
or this one: http://www.springerlink.com/content/k79u647l7g25708x/
or this one: http://jls.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/2/139

I think these are all the same piece of research but with slightly different angles.

By: Denise

Denise — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:31:32 +0000

Snowqueen, I think those are some terrific points your friend made in his paper. I wonder where those terms came from (kiss, fondle, etc.) — the defendant’s own pleadings or the court’s? I can imagine the attorney for the defendant trying to minimize the contact by using those “affection” words, but I’d certainly like to see the court use the more correct wording when handing down the conviction!

Put me squarely in the camp that says this guy does not deserve to work with minors, especially girls.

By: snowqueen

snowqueen — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:13:13 +0000

I have a friend who co-wrote a really interesting paper about the language used to describe the defendent and his actions in cases where he was *convicted* (from analysis of court records in Canada). There were plenty of references to his otherwise exemplary character, as if this was an aberrant, unusual act. Also the use of terms like ‘kiss’, ‘fondle’ etc. My friend suggested that these are words associated with affection and therefore were not accurate descriptors. Rather they should say ‘unwanted oral contact’ and ‘unwanted physical contact’. My friend also suggested that rather than ‘sexual abuse’ one should say ‘sexualised abuse’ because abuse is abuse and not actually sex – his (my friend is male) argument was that calling it sex because it involves a penis is like hitting someone over the head with a frying pan and calling it ‘cooking’.

I am stunned that anyone could defend this guy’s actions and ‘right’ to work in a school. I don’t think that would happen in the UK quite so easily but I could be wrong.

By: theobromophile

theobromophile — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:46:01 +0000

Given that there were kids in the car with the two women, shouldn’t that be enough to prove that he’s not “just” scaring women, he’s also going after kids?

By: Sheelzebub

Sheelzebub — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:32:58 +0000

You know, if he’s convicted, he may not be able to keep his job anyway. In my state, it’s quite common for HHS and public ed organizations to run a CORI check on applicants. A drug bust could keep you out, for Hades’ sake, but then, the rules are different when it’s a guy “only” having some fun.

Sheesh. What that columnist said was right–most sexual offenders start off with “minor” offenses–peeping, flashing, or stealing underwear. Some eventually graduate to far more serious (in the legal definition, at least) offenses.

By: lafeminista

lafeminista — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:47:25 +0000

The people defending this man are claiming that his actions have nothing to do with his work. At what age does a “girl” become a “woman” who he would assault? 12? 10? Would he assault a teacher, or other female employee at the school? I say fire him.

By: Mary Sunshine

Mary Sunshine — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:00:18 +0000

Hi Heart,

You asked:

“I wonder whether those defending the principal would feel the same way if he’d sexually assaulted them, their daughters, their mothers? ”

They probably would, if they were like my mother, and 90% of the mothers of women who have been sexually assaulted by our fathers.

Daughter? Hell, no. Males? Hell, yeah!

That’s what we’re up against, on *all* fronts, not just sexual assault.

And of course, all of these folks claim to just *love* women.

Mary S.