The Complete Texas Hazing Guide for Families in Olney & Young County: Your Roadmap to Accountability

If Your Child Was Hazed at a Texas University, You Are Not Alone

It’s a Thursday night in November, and your phone rings from an unfamiliar number. Your son, a freshman at Texas A&M University, is speaking in a slurred, panicked voice you barely recognize. He’s at a fraternity house in College Station, but he can’t tell you exactly what’s happening—only that he’s scared, he’s hurt, and he needs help. You’re three hours away in Olney, feeling utterly helpless. The campus police say they’ll “look into it.” The fraternity president assures you it was “just a party that got out of hand.” Your child comes home for Thanksgiving break with unexplained bruises, nightmares, and a withdrawal notice from his classes. You know something terrible happened, but the truth seems buried beneath layers of secrecy, tradition, and institutional protection.

This nightmare scenario is unfolding right now for Texas families. In Houston, just a few hours from Olney, we are currently fighting one of the most serious hazing cases in the country—the Leonel Bermudez University of Houston Pi Kappa Phi lawsuit—where a pledge suffered kidney failure after being forced through brutal workouts, chugging milk and hot dogs until vomiting, and enduring what was described as “waterboarding” with a hose. This $10 million case proves that extreme, dangerous hazing isn’t just happening somewhere else; it’s happening at Texas universities where Olney and Young County families send their children.

This comprehensive guide is written specifically for parents and families in Olney, Graham, Newcastle, and throughout Young County, Texas who need to understand the reality of modern hazing, Texas law, and what legal options exist when institutions fail to protect students. Whether your child attends a local campus or one of Texas’s major universities, you have rights—and powerful organizations can be held accountable.

IMMEDIATE HELP FOR HAZING EMERGENCIES

If your child is in danger RIGHT NOW:

• Call 911 for medical emergencies
• Then call Attorney911: 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911)
• We provide immediate help – that’s why we’re the Legal Emergency Lawyers™

In the first 48 hours:

1. Get medical attention immediately, even if the student insists they are “fine”
2. Preserve evidence BEFORE it’s deleted:
   • Screenshot group chats, texts, DMs immediately
   • Photograph injuries from multiple angles
   • Save physical items (clothing, receipts, objects)
3. Write down everything while memory is fresh (who, what, when, where)
4. Do NOT:
   • Confront the fraternity/sorority
   • Sign anything from the university or insurance company
   • Post details on public social media
   • Let your child delete messages or “clean up” evidence

Contact an experienced hazing attorney within 24–48 hours:

Evidence disappears fast (deleted group chats, destroyed paddles, coached witnesses). Universities move quickly to control the narrative. We can help preserve evidence and protect your child’s rights. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 for immediate consultation.

Hazing in 2025: What It Really Looks Like for Texas Families

For parents in Olney who may not be familiar with modern campus Greek life, hazing has evolved far beyond the stereotypes of “harmless pranks” or “boys will be boys.” Today’s hazing is systematic, often digitally coordinated, and concealed with sophisticated secrecy protocols.

The Modern Definition of Hazing

Hazing is any forced, coerced, or strongly pressured action tied to joining, keeping membership, or gaining status in a group, where the behavior endangers physical or mental health, humiliates, or exploits. Crucially, “I agreed to it” does not make it legal or safe when there is inherent peer pressure and power imbalance between pledges and full members.

Main Categories of Hazing Affecting Texas Students

Alcohol and Substance Hazing

• Forced or coerced drinking games like “Big/Little” nights, “lineups,” or “Bible study” trivia where wrong answers mean dangerous alcohol consumption
• Being pressured to consume unknown or mixed substances
• The Leonel Bermudez UH case involved forced consumption of milk, hot dogs, and peppercorns until vomiting

Physical Hazing

• Paddling and beatings (still occurring despite national prohibitions)
• Extreme calisthenics or “smokings” far beyond normal conditioning
• Sleep deprivation, food/water deprivation during “hell week”
• Exposure to extreme cold/heat or dangerous environments
• In the UH Pi Kappa Phi case, Bermudez was forced through 100+ push-ups and 500 squats, left in vomit-soaked grass, and sprayed with a hose “similar to waterboarding”

Sexualized and Humiliating Hazing

• Forced nudity or partial nudity
• Simulated sexual acts, “roasted pig” positions, degrading costumes
• Acts with racial or sexist overtones, slurs, or role-play
• The “pledge fanny pack” requirement at UH included carrying condoms and sex toys as humiliation

Psychological Hazing

• Verbal abuse, threats, isolation from non-members
• Manipulation or forced confessions
• Public shaming in meetings or group chats

Digital/Online Hazing

• Group chat dares on GroupMe, WhatsApp, Discord
• “Challenges” shared via Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok
• Pressure to create or share compromising images/videos
• 24/7 availability expectations with immediate punishment for delayed responses

Where Hazing Actually Happens in Texas

Contrary to popular belief, hazing extends far beyond traditional fraternities:

• Fraternities and Sororities (IFC, Panhellenic, NPHC, multicultural councils)
• Corps of Cadets / ROTC / military-style groups (particularly relevant at Texas A&M)
• Spirit squads and tradition clubs (Texas Cowboys, cheer teams, etc.)
• Athletic teams (football, basketball, baseball, swimming)
• Marching bands and performance groups
• Some academic, service, and cultural organizations

The common threads are social status, tradition, and secrecy that keep these practices alive despite every university’s public “zero tolerance” policies.

Texas Law & Liability Framework: What Olney Families Need to Know

Texas has specific anti-hazing statutes that provide both criminal penalties and civil liability pathways. Understanding this framework is crucial for Olney families considering legal action.

Texas Education Code – Chapter 37, Subchapter F (Hazing)

§ 37.151 Definition

Hazing means any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, on or off campus, by one person alone or with others, directed against a student, that:

• Endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student, AND
• Occurs for the purpose of pledging, initiation into, affiliation with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization whose members include students.

Plain English for Olney Parents:
If someone makes your child do something dangerous, harmful, or degrading to join or stay in a group, and they meant to do it or were reckless about the risk, that’s hazing under Texas law. Location doesn’t matter—it can happen on campus, at an off-campus house, or even at a retreat hours away.

Key Points:

• Can be mental or physical harm
• Intent: Doesn’t have to be malicious; “reckless” is enough (knew the risk and did it anyway)
• “Consent” is not a defense (see § 37.155 below)

§ 37.152 Criminal Penalties

• Class B Misdemeanor: Hazing that doesn’t cause serious injury (up to 180 days jail, fine up to $2,000)
• Class A Misdemeanor: If hazing causes injury requiring medical treatment
• State Jail Felony: If hazing causes serious bodily injury or death

Additional Criminal Provisions:

• Failing to report hazing (if you’re a member or officer and knew about it): misdemeanor
• Retaliating against someone who reports hazing: misdemeanor

§ 37.153 Organizational Liability

Organizations (fraternities, sororities, clubs, teams) can be criminally prosecuted for hazing if:

• The org authorized or encouraged the hazing, OR
• An officer or member acting in official capacity knew about hazing and failed to report it

Penalties for organizations:

• Fine up to $10,000 per violation
• University can revoke recognition and ban the org from campus

§ 37.155 Consent Not a Defense

This critical provision states: It is not a defense to prosecution for hazing that the person being hazed consented to the hazing activity.

Why this matters for Olney families: Directly rebuts the #1 defense fraternities use—”they wanted to do it” or “they agreed to participate.” Texas law recognizes that consent under peer pressure isn’t true voluntary consent.

§ 37.156 Reporting by Educational Institutions

Texas colleges and universities must:

• Provide hazing prevention education to students
• Publish hazing policies
• Maintain and publish annual reports of hazing violations and disciplinary actions

Practical implication: Universities like UT Austin already publish hazing violation logs (hazing.utexas.edu). These public records can be crucial evidence showing patterns of known misconduct.

Criminal vs Civil Cases: Understanding the Difference

Criminal Cases

• Brought by the state (county or district attorney)
• Aim: Punishment (jail, fines, probation)
• Typical hazing-related charges:
  • Hazing offenses
  • Furnishing alcohol to minors
  • Assault, battery
  • Manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide in fatal cases
• Burden of proof: “Beyond a reasonable doubt”

Civil Cases

• Brought by victims or surviving families
• Aim: Monetary compensation and accountability
• Legal theories:
  • Negligence and gross negligence
  • Wrongful death
  • Negligent hiring/supervision
  • Premises liability
  • Intentional infliction of emotional distress
• Burden of proof: “Preponderance of the evidence” (more likely than not)

Critical Point: Both types can proceed simultaneously. A criminal conviction is not required to pursue a civil case. In fact, many hazing cases result in civil settlements even when criminal charges are reduced or dismissed.

Federal Overlay: Stop Campus Hazing Act, Title IX, Clery

Stop Campus Hazing Act (2024)

• Requires colleges receiving federal aid to report hazing incidents more transparently
• Strengthens hazing education and prevention requirements
• Mandates public hazing data reporting (phased in by 2026)
• Impact for Texas families: More transparency from universities about which organizations have violations

Title IX

• Triggered when hazing involves sexual harassment, sexual assault, or gender-based hostility
• Creates additional reporting obligations for universities
• Can provide alternative accountability pathway when criminal prosecution stalls

Clery Act

• Requires reporting certain crimes and maintaining safety statistics
• Hazing incidents often overlap with assault, alcohol, or drug crimes that must be reported
• Recent development: The U.S. Department of Education is increasingly scrutinizing whether universities properly report hazing-related crimes

Who Can Be Liable in a Civil Hazing Lawsuit?

Individual Students
= The ones who planned, supplied alcohol, carried out acts, or helped cover up

Local Chapter/Organization
= The fraternity/sorority club itself (if incorporated)
= Chapter officers acting in official capacity

National Fraternity/Sorority Headquarters
= Organizations that set policies, receive dues, and supervise chapters
= Liability hinges on what they knew or should have known from prior incidents

University or Governing Board
= Schools may be sued under negligence or civil-rights theories
= Key questions: prior warnings, policy enforcement, deliberate indifference
= Public universities (UH, Texas A&M, UT) have sovereign immunity limitations but not complete protection

Third Parties
= Landlords/owners of houses or event spaces
= Bars or alcohol providers (under dram shop theories)
= Security companies or event organizers

Every case is fact-specific, but experienced hazing attorneys know how to identify all potentially liable parties to maximize accountability and recovery.

National Hazing Case Patterns: Lessons for Texas Families

The tragedies that have unfolded at campuses nationwide provide both warning and precedent for Texas families. These cases show repeating patterns that fraternities and universities have failed to stop.

Alcohol Poisoning & Death Pattern

Timothy Piazza – Penn State, Beta Theta Pi (2017)

• Bid-acceptance event with heavy drinking captured on chapter security cameras
• Piazza suffered multiple falls, brothers delayed calling 911 for hours
• Legal outcome: Dozens of criminal charges against fraternity members; civil litigation; Pennsylvania enacted Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing Law
• Texas relevance: Shows how digital evidence (security footage) and delayed medical response create overwhelming liability

Max Gruver – LSU, Phi Delta Theta (2017)

• “Bible study” drinking game where wrong answers meant forced drinking
• Gruver died with BAC of 0.495%
• Legal outcome: Multiple members charged; Louisiana enacted Max Gruver Act (felony hazing statute)
• Texas relevance: Demonstrates how state legislatures respond to public outrage with stronger laws

Stone Foltz – Bowling Green State University, Pi Kappa Alpha (2021)

• Pledge forced to drink nearly entire bottle of whiskey during “Big/Little” night
• Died from alcohol poisoning
• Legal outcome: Multiple criminal convictions; $10 million total settlement ($7M from Pi Kappa Alpha national, ~$3M from BGSU)
• Texas relevance: Shows national fraternities can face massive financial exposure

Andrew Coffey – Florida State, Pi Kappa Phi (2017)

• Big/little event where pledge was given handle of liquor
• Died from acute alcohol poisoning
• Legal outcome: Criminal hazing charges; FSU temporarily suspended all Greek life
• Texas relevance: Same national organization (Pi Kappa Phi) involved in current UH case

Physical & Ritualized Hazing Pattern

Chun “Michael” Deng – Baruch College, Pi Delta Psi (2013)

• Pledge subjected to violent blindfolded “glass ceiling” ritual at off-campus retreat
• Suffered fatal head injuries; help was delayed
• Legal outcome: Multiple members convicted; fraternity banned from Pennsylvania for 10 years; national fraternity convicted of aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter
• Texas relevance: Proves off-campus locations don’t eliminate liability and national organizations can face criminal conviction

Athletic Program Hazing & Abuse

Northwestern University Football (2023–2025)

• Former players alleged sexualized, racist hazing within football program
• Legal outcome: Multiple lawsuits against university; head coach Pat Fitzgerald fired then settled wrongful-termination suit confidentially
• Texas relevance: Demonstrates hazing extends beyond Greek life to big-money athletic programs

What These National Cases Mean for Olney Families

1. Patterns repeat: The same dangerous behaviors (forced drinking, physical abuse, delayed medical care) recur across different organizations and campuses
2. Institutional knowledge exists: National fraternities have extensive records of prior incidents but often fail to implement effective prevention
3. Legal accountability is possible: Multi-million dollar settlements and criminal convictions show these cases can be won
4. Texas is not immune: The current UH Pi Kappa Phi case proves severe hazing is happening right here in Texas

Texas University Focus: Where Olney & Young County Families Send Their Children

While Olney itself is home to strong community values and close-knit families, many Young County students pursue higher education at Texas’s major universities. Understanding the hazing landscape at these campuses is crucial for local families.

Geographic Reality for Olney Families

Young County students commonly attend:

• Texas A&M University (2.5-3 hour drive from Olney)
• University of Texas at Austin (3-3.5 hour drive)
• Texas Tech University (2.5-3 hour drive)
• University of North Texas (2 hour drive)
• Midwestern State University (1 hour drive in Wichita Falls)
• Various community colleges and smaller universities

The Leonel Bermudez case at University of Houston (4.5 hour drive) demonstrates that severe hazing can happen at any major Texas campus, regardless of distance from home.

University of Houston (UH) – Current Epicenter of Texas Hazing Litigation

The Flagship Case: Leonel Bermudez v. UH & Pi Kappa Phi

Right now, we are actively litigating one of Texas’s most severe hazing cases at the University of Houston. This case serves as a critical example for Olney families of what modern hazing looks like and how institutions respond:

Case Timeline & Facts:

• September 2025: Bermudez accepts bid to Pi Kappa Phi Beta Nu chapter
• September-October: Subjected to “pledge fanny pack” humiliation (carrying condoms, sex toys, nicotine devices), forced dress codes, overnight chauffeuring duties
• October 13: Witnessed another pledge hog-tied face-down on table with object in mouth for over an hour
• November 3: Forced through 100+ push-ups, 500 squats under threat of expulsion
• November 6-9: Hospitalized for four days with rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney failure (brown urine, critically high creatine kinase levels)
• November 6: Pi Kappa Phi national suspends Beta Nu chapter
• November 14: Chapter members vote to surrender charter; chapter closed

Hazing Locations:

• Pi Kappa Phi chapter house at/near UH
• Culmore Drive residence (owned by former member)
• Yellowstone Boulevard Park for early morning workouts

Defendants Include:

• University of Houston
• UH System Board of Regents
• Pi Kappa Phi national headquarters
• Beta Nu housing corporation
• 13 individual fraternity leaders/members

University Response:
UH called the conduct “deeply disturbing,” promised disciplinary measures up to expulsion and cooperation with law enforcement, and credited Pi Kappa Phi HQ for decisive action.

Why This Matters for Olney Families:
This case proves that:

1. Catastrophic injuries (kidney failure) are occurring at Texas universities
2. Multiple entities can be held liable (university, national, local chapter, individuals)
3. Digital evidence (the “pledge fanny pack” rule in