Digging Through The Bovine Excrement

As a native of the great south east region of Fort Lonesome in the greater Hillsborough County in the greater state of Floriduh, I did my share of shoveling animal feces back in the day. I was an ace pile-it. I could pile it in the corner of the stalls, I could pile it in the wheelbarrow or I could pile it next to the vegetable crops.

When segregated, piles of manure had their own characteristics. Chicken salad burned your eyes, while cow patties steamed and stunk. Slightly dried horse dung made nice little throwing instruments of attack, and would explode when hitting an unsuspecting peer. Duck slime was like oil on asphalt, assuring that one stepped straight down and no shuffling.

While we country boys were not known for our academic wizardry, we did have an uncanny sense of the obvious. For instance, while walking through hundreds of acres of pastures, we could tell which pastures had cows on it and which ones did not. Even tax appraisers, trying to ferret out false claims of green belt exemptions, knew to look for tell tale evidence of animal existence. The dried up cow chips were a good indication of length of tenure.

I can only imagine what it would have been like for a representative of the school system to have made a turd assessment. I can easily envision, while there were piles of bull shit a plenty, an administrator writing a report that there was no evidence of cow pies to be seen.

Maybe it is because some types of bovines are protected through their association. Sort of like school administrators that belong to HASA. Perhaps it cost more money for a school system to pursue wayward administrator dumping than it is to pursue lower-level teacher farts.

Recently, there was a report of a school administrator at King High school calling boys into his office for toe popping. A link to the story can be found here on Detention Slip.org:

DetentionSlip.org: Administrator at Tampa's King High 'popped' students' toes for poor grades

After several days of sole searching, I am a bit corn-founded, and am in search of some arching answers to a few questions.

If the students had been girls, would the results be different?

Were the boys involved gay?

Did the boys involved have similar personalities that were vulnerable to "grooming"?

Did the fact that one boy had 20 consensual acts mean that, since it was consensual, there was a "no harm, no foul" assessment, and would that same criteria be held to consensal behavior of any kind between an administrator and a student?

Did the system see the writing on the wall regarding their level of liability and therefore erected their first bulwark of future defense?

Was the content and intent of this brochure followed?:

The following behavior may be indicative of misconduct that should be reported:
• being alone with a student in dark or closed room or secluded area
• behaving in an overly friendly or familiar way or failing to maintain an appropriate professional boundary with a student
• using forceful or unnecessary physical contact with a student
• administering discipline not compliant with district policy

While it certainly seems to be a fresh jar of jam, I can only wait for the next shoe to drop. Others may just have to put a sock on it.