A Parent’s Guide to Hazing in Texas: Protecting Students at UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, and Baylor

The late-night call arrived. Your child, a bright, ambitious student from Burleson County, told you they were with their new fraternity or sorority at a house near campus. They sounded off. Distant. Maybe a little slurred. They tried to reassure you, “It’s just initiation, everyone does it, I’m fine.” Then, the line went dead. Hours later, you receive a cryptic text: “I’m okay, slept it off.” But the worry gnaws at you. What really happened? Why the secrecy? Was it just a rough night, or was it something more dangerous, something illegal?

This scenario, tragically common, could unfold for any family in Burleson County, Texas, whose child attends one of our state’s many universities. It’s a stark reminder that beneath the veneer of college tradition, a darker, often hidden world of hazing persists. As parents, we send our children off to college expecting them to thrive, grow, and learn, not to endure dangerous and demeaning rituals. When those expectations are shattered, understanding your rights and options becomes paramount.

This comprehensive guide is designed for families in Burleson County and across Texas who need a clear, empathetic, and legally grounded overview of hazing. We will explore what hazing truly looks like in 2025, moving beyond outdated stereotypes to reveal its modern, often insidious, forms. We will dissect the Texas legal framework for hazing, examining both criminal and civil avenues for accountability, and how federal laws like the Stop Campus Hazing Act are changing the landscape. Through an in-depth look at major national cases and specific incidents at the University of Houston (UH), Texas A&M University, the University of Texas at Austin (UT), Southern Methodist University (SMU), and Baylor University, we will connect national patterns to the local realities faced by Texas families. We will also delve into the national histories of many fraternities and sororities, demonstrating how a pattern of misconduct fuels liability. Finally, we will provide practical guides for parents, students, and witnesses, as well as a critical warning about common mistakes that can jeopardize a case, ensuring that families in Burleson County, Caldwell, and throughout the surrounding region are armed with the knowledge they need.

This article offers general information and does not constitute specific legal advice. While we serve families throughout Texas, including those from Burleson County sending their children to schools across the state, every case demands a personalized evaluation. The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC is dedicated to providing those evaluations and guiding families through these challenging times.

IMMEDIATE HELP FOR HAZING EMERGENCIES:

When faced with a hazing emergency, every second counts. Knowing the right steps to take can dramatically impact your child’s safety and the potential for legal recourse.

• If your child is in immediate danger RIGHT NOW:

  • Call 911 for medical emergencies or immediate threats. Do not hesitate. Prioritize their life and safety above all else.
  • Then call Attorney911: 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911). We are the Legal Emergency Lawyers™ and understand the urgency of these situations.

• In the first 48 hours, critical actions are required:

  • Get medical attention immediately. Even if your child insists they are “fine” or “just slept it off,” underlying injuries or extreme intoxication can have delayed consequences. Medical documentation is crucial.
  • Preserve evidence BEFORE it’s deleted. This is perhaps the most vital step.
    • Screenshot group chats, texts, and direct messages IMMEDIATELY. Hazing organizers often delete these quickly. Capture full conversations with timestamps and participant names visible.
    • Photograph any visible injuries from multiple angles and at different times to document progression.
    • Save any physical items (clothing worn during the incident, receipts for forced purchases, or objects used in hazing), keeping them undisturbed.
  • Write down everything while the memory is fresh: who was involved, what exactly happened, when and where it took place. Contemporaneous notes are powerful evidence.
  • Do NOT:
    • Confront the fraternity, sorority, or organization directly. This can lead to evidence destruction, witness coaching, and further harm.
    • Sign anything from the university or insurance company without legal advice. These documents often include waivers that can forfeit your rights.
    • Post details on public social media. This can compromise your case, create inconsistencies, and waive legal privileges.
    • Allow your child to delete messages or “clean up” evidence. This can be considered obstruction and gravely harm any future legal action.

• Contact an experienced hazing attorney within 24–48 hours. Time is a hostile opponent in hazing cases. Evidence disappears rapidly (deleted group chats, destroyed objects, coached witnesses). Universities often move quickly to control the narrative and conduct internal “investigations” that may not prioritize victim rights or full accountability. An attorney can help preserve crucial evidence, navigate complex institutional processes, and protect your child’s legal rights. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 for an immediate, confidential consultation.

Hazing in 2025: What It Really Looks Like

For families in Burleson County, Texas, particularly those sending their children to our state’s universities, understanding modern hazing is crucial. It’s no longer just the stereotypical “pranks” or superficial rituals of decades past. Hazing today is sophisticated, often hidden, and far more dangerous, designed to enforce loyalty through fear and humiliation.

A Clear, Modern Definition of Hazing

At its core, hazing is any forced, coerced, or strongly pressured action tied to joining, maintaining membership, or gaining status in a group. This behavior endangers mental or physical health, humiliates, or exploits a person. Critically, and this is a point we will revisit, a student “agreeing” to participate does not automatically make it safe or legal. In the context of intense peer pressure and significant power imbalances, true consent is often impossible.

Main Categories of Modern Hazing

The tactics involved in hazing have evolved, encompassing a wide range of harmful activities.

• Alcohol and Substance Hazing: This remains one of the most prevalent and deadly forms of hazing. It involves forced or coerced drinking, often excessive quantities in short periods. This can manifest as “chugging challenges,” “lineups” where new members are forced to drink in sequence, or “games” designed to encourage rapid, dangerous alcohol consumption. Tragically, it can also include pressure to consume unknown substances or illicit drugs. The goal is often to incapacitate, degrade, and break down psychological and physical resistance.

• Physical Hazing: Beyond stereotypical paddling, physical hazing today includes extreme calisthenics, forced “workouts,” or “smokings” far beyond normal training limits, often leading to exhaustion and injury. Sleep deprivation, sometimes over multiple days, along with food and water deprivation, is common. Exposure to extreme weather conditions or dangerous environments (like being abandoned miles from campus) also falls into this category. The intent is to deprive, exhaust, and break down a new member’s will.

• Sexualized and Humiliating Hazing: This deeply damaging category includes forced nudity or partial nudity, simulated sexual acts (often demeaning and designed for entertainment by older members), “roasted pig” positions (as seen in some Corps hazing), and other degrading costumes or actions. These acts frequently carry racial, homophobic, or sexist overtones, further compounding the harm.

• Psychological Hazing: Often overlooked but profoundly impactful, psychological hazing involves verbal abuse, constant insults, threats, and deliberate isolation. Manipulation, forced confessions, and public shaming—whether in person or online—are common. This type of hazing aims to break down a new member’s self-esteem and independence, making them more susceptible to group control.

• Digital/Online Hazing: With the rise of smartphones and social media, digital hazing has become a ubiquitous and insidious threat. This includes dares, “challenges,” and public humiliation spread via Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, GroupMe, Discord, and other platforms. New members may be pressured to create or share compromising images or videos, respond instantly to group chats at all hours, or have their location tracked digitally. This form leverages technology to create a constant, all-encompassing environment of pressure and control.

Where Hazing Actually Happens in 2025

While fraternities and sororities (including Interfraternity Council (IFC), Panhellenic Council, National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC), and multicultural chapters) are commonly associated with hazing, the problem extends far beyond Greek life.

• Fraternities and Sororities: These remain primary sites, with hazing tactics adapted to avoid detection.
• Corps of Cadets / ROTC / Military-Style Groups: Groups like the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets, with their emphasis on tradition, hierarchy, and discipline, have unfortunately also been the subject of hazing allegations.
• Spirit Squads, Tradition Clubs: Organizations such as “Texas Cowboys”-type groups, which often value fierce loyalty and secretive traditions, can also be breeding grounds for hazing.
• Athletic Teams: From football and basketball to baseball, cheerleading, and even club sports, hazing on athletic teams is distressingly common, often disguised as “team building” or “toughening up.” The Northwestern University scandal vividly illustrated this.
• Marching Bands and Performance Groups: Even seemingly innocuous organizations, like university bands, have seen devastating hazing incidents, as highlighted by the Robert Champion case at Florida A&M.
• Other Student Organizations: Many service, cultural, and academic organizations, particularly those with a strong sense of internal hierarchy or “tradition,” can unwittingly or intentionally perpetuate hazing.

These practices persist despite clear rules and universal condemnation, often because of powerful motivators: the desire for social status, a misguided sense of “tradition,” and a code of silence that protects perpetrators and institutions. For families in Burleson County, understanding the broad scope of where and how hazing can occur is the first step in prevention and protection.

Law & Liability Framework (Texas + Federal)

For Burleson County families whose child has been impacted by hazing, navigating the legal landscape can feel overwhelming. Fortunately, both Texas state law and evolving federal regulations provide avenues for redress and accountability. It’s crucial to understand the distinct types of legal action available and who can be held responsible.

Texas Hazing Law Basics (Education Code)

Texas has specific, robust anti-hazing provisions located in the Texas Education Code, Chapter 37, Subchapter F. This statute clearly defines and prohibits hazing, holding both individuals and organizations accountable.

Under Texas law, hazing is any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, committed by one person alone or with others, directed against a student, that:

• Endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student, including physical beatings, forced exercise, forced consumption of alcohol or drugs, excessive sleep deprivation, or similar physically harmful acts.
• Substantially affects the mental health or safety of a student, encompassing acts of extreme humiliation, intense intimidation, or psychological manipulation.
• And occurs for the purpose of pledging, initiation into, affiliation with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization whose members include students.

Key aspects of Texas Hazing Law:

• On or Off Campus: The law applies regardless of whether the hazing occurs on university grounds in Houston or College Station, or off-campus in a private residence in Austin or a remote location near Waco.
• Intent Broadly Defined: It is not necessary to prove malicious intent. “Reckless” conduct is sufficient, meaning the person knew of the risk and disregarded it.
• “Consent” is NOT a Defense: As explicitly stated in Texas Education Code § 37.155, a student’s “consent” to the hazing activity is not a defense against prosecution. This is critical, as coerced participation is a hallmark of hazing.

Criminal Penalties for Hazing in Texas:

• Class B Misdemeanor is the default for hazing that doesn’t cause serious injury (up to 180 days in jail, fine up to $2,000).
• Class A Misdemeanor if the hazing causes an injury requiring medical treatment.
• State Jail Felony if the hazing causes serious bodily injury or death. This is a significant escalation from a potential criminal record.
• Failing to report hazing by a member or officer who knew about it is also a misdemeanor.
• Retaliating against someone who reports hazing is similarly a misdemeanor.

Organizational Liability (Texas Education Code § 37.153):

• Organizations (fraternities, sororities, teams, clubs) can face criminal prosecution and fines up to $10,000 if they authorized, encouraged, or if an officer/member acting in an official capacity knew about the hazing and failed to report it. Universities can also revoke recognition and ban violating organizations.

Immunity for Good-Faith Reporting (Texas Education Code § 37.154):

• Individuals who report hazing incidents in good faith to university authorities or law enforcement are immune from civil or criminal liability stemming from that report. This is designed to encourage reporting. Additionally, Texas law and university policies often extend amnesty for students who call for emergency medical help, even if underage drinking or drug use was involved.

Criminal vs. Civil Cases

Understanding the distinction between criminal and civil actions is vital for Burleson County families seeking justice.

• Criminal Cases: These are initiated by the state (prosecutors) against individuals or organizations accused of violating a criminal hazing statute. The goal is to punish the offender through incarceration, fines, or probation. Common criminal charges related to hazing can include hazing offenses, furnishing alcohol to minors, assault, battery, and, in tragic cases, manslaughter.
• Civil Cases: These are lawsuits brought by victims or their surviving families against individuals and institutions involved in the hazing. The aim is to obtain monetary compensation (“damages”) for the harm suffered and to hold responsible parties accountable. Civil claims often involve theories of negligence, gross negligence, wrongful death, negligent hiring/supervision, premises liability (for property owners), and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

It’s important to note that criminal and civil cases can proceed concurrently. A criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for pursuing a civil lawsuit, and victims can recover damages even if criminal charges are never filed or result in acquittal.

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

Beyond Texas state law, federal regulations are increasingly shaping the landscape of hazing accountability.

• Stop Campus Hazing Act (2024): This landmark federal legislation, largely inspired by tragic cases like Timothy Piazza and Max Gruver, requires colleges and universities receiving federal financial aid to:
  • Publicly report all hazing incidents (both on and off campus) on an annual basis, detailing the organization involved, the nature of the violation, and disciplinary actions. This will become effective around 2026.
  • Strengthen hazing education and prevention efforts.
  • Maintain public data on hazing violations, similar to existing Clery Act reporting for other campus crimes. This new level of transparency will be invaluable for Burleson County families researching campus safety records.
• Title IX: If hazing involves sexual harassment, sexual assault, gender-based hostility, or targets individuals based on their sex, it can trigger a university’s obligations under Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education.
• Clery Act: The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act requires colleges to report campus crime data. Hazing incidents, particularly those involving assaults, alcohol/drug violations, or severe injuries, often fall under categories that must be reported under the Clery Act, contributing to the overall picture of campus safety.

For families across Texas, these federal laws mean increased transparency and accountability from universities, equipping them with more information to make informed decisions and to build stronger legal cases against negligent institutions.

Who Can Be Liable in a Civil Hazing Lawsuit

In complex hazing litigation, identifying all potentially liable parties is crucial to securing full compensation and accountability.

• Individual Students: Those who planned, orchestrated, participated in, or supplied alcohol/drugs for the hazing, or who helped cover it up, can be held individually liable for their actions.
• Local Chapter / Organization: The specific fraternity, sorority, club, or athletic team, if it is a legal entity, can be sued directly. Officers or “pledge educators” who organized or oversaw the hazing events are often key defendants.
• National Fraternity/Sorority: The national headquarters, which charters local chapters, sets policies, collects dues, and often has risk management guidelines, can be held liable. This often hinges on whether the national organization had prior knowledge of hazing patterns (often demonstrated through recurring incidents across different chapters), failed to adequately enforce their “anti-hazing” rules, or provided inadequate supervision. The history of the national organization is often central to proving this liability.
• University or Governing Board: The educational institution itself, or its governing board (like the Board of Regents for Texas A&M or UT), can be sued for negligence. This typically involves arguments around negligent supervision, a failure to enforce policies, knowing or willfully ignoring a pattern of hazing, or breaching a duty of care to its students. Sovereign immunity can complicate claims against public universities, but exceptions exist and often public universities choose to settle such cases to avoid lengthy and damaging litigation.
• Third Parties: This can include landlords or owners of off-campus houses or event spaces where hazing occurred, bars or alcohol suppliers (under Texas dram shop laws if they served obviously intoxicated individuals or minors), and even security companies or event organizers who failed in their duty to ensure safety.

Every hazing case in Burleson County, or anywhere in Texas, is fact-specific, and the precise combination of liable parties will vary depending on the incident. An experienced hazing attorney understands how to meticulously investigate each potential defendant and build a comprehensive case for accountability.

National Hazing Case Patterns (Anchor Stories)

When a hazing tragedy strikes in Texas, particularly at universities like UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, or Baylor, it often echoes a disturbing pattern seen nationwide. These national anchor stories are not just headlines; they are critical precedents that illuminate systemic issues, shape legal strategy, and educate courts and juries about the foreseeability and consequences of hazing. For Burleson County families, understanding these patterns can provide context and strength to their own pursuit of justice.

Alcohol Poisoning & Death Pattern

The most common and lethal form of hazing involves the forced or coerced consumption of alcohol, often to extreme and fatal levels.

• Timothy Piazza – Penn State University, Beta Theta Pi (2017): In one of the most widely publicized hazing deaths, 19-year-old Timothy Piazza died after a “bid acceptance” night that involved extreme alcohol consumption. Piazza suffered multiple falls, including down a flight of stairs, resulting in a traumatic brain injury. Harrowing security camera footage showed fraternity brothers delaying calling for help for nearly 12 hours while Piazza suffered. This case resulted in 18 fraternity members facing over 1,000 criminal counts, including involuntary manslaughter, and led to the Pennsylvania Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing Law. The civil lawsuits ended in confidential settlements. Takeaway for Texas families: This case vividly demonstrates how extreme intoxication, a deliberate delay in calling 911, and a pervasive culture of silence can be legally devastating for both individuals and institutions.
• Andrew Coffey – Florida State University, Pi Kappa Phi (2017): During a “Big Brother Night,” pledge Andrew Coffey was given a handle (1.75 liters) of hard liquor and forced to consume it. He died from acute alcohol poisoning. Multiple members were prosecuted for misdemeanor hazing. Florida State University responded by temporarily suspending all Greek life and overhauling its anti-hazing policies, sparking a statewide anti-hazing movement. Takeaway for Texas families: This incident highlights how these formulaic “tradition” drinking nights are a repeating script for disaster, often leading to predictable and preventable deaths.
• Maxwell “Max” Gruver – Louisiana State University, Phi Delta Theta (2017): Pledge Max Gruver died from alcohol toxicity with a blood alcohol content of 0.495% after participating in a “Bible study” drinking game. Pledges were forced to drink when they answered questions incorrectly. This tragedy led to the passage of the Max Gruver Act in Louisiana, a felony hazing statute. Criminal charges were brought against several members, and the civil case resulted in confidential settlements. Takeaway for Texas families: Gruver’s case underscores how legislative change often follows public outrage and clear proof of hazing, and that seemingly innocuous “games” can have lethal consequences.
• Stone Foltz – Bowling Green State University, Pi Kappa Alpha (2021): Another fatal “pledge night” incident saw 20-year-old Stone Foltz forced to consume an entire bottle of whiskey. He died from alcohol poisoning. This case led to multiple criminal convictions for hazing-related charges against fraternity members. Civil litigation resulted in a substantial $10 million settlement ($7 million from the Pi Kappa Alpha national fraternity and about $3 million from Bowling Green State University). Separately, a court ordered the chapter president to personally pay $6.5 million. Takeaway for Texas families: The Foltz case powerfully illustrates that universities, even public ones, can face significant financial and reputational consequences, alongside national fraternities, for their roles in hazing tragedies. It also shows potential for massive individual liability.

Physical & Ritualized Hazing Pattern

Beyond alcohol, physical and ritualized violence remains a core component of many hazing practices.

• Chun “Michael” Deng – Baruch College, Pi Delta Psi (2013): During an off-campus retreat in the Pocono Mountains, pledge Michael Deng was blindfolded, weighted down with a heavy backpack, and repeatedly tackled in a ritual called the “glass ceiling.” He suffered a fatal traumatic brain injury, and fraternity members delayed calling 911 for critical hours. Multiple members were criminally convicted, and the national fraternity itself was convicted of aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter—a landmark case. Pi Delta Psi was banned from Pennsylvania for 10 years. Takeaway for Texas families: This case demonstrates that off-campus “retreats” are often chosen precisely to hide dangerous hazing and can be as dangerous or worse than on-campus events. National organizations can face severe criminal and civil sanctions when their chapters engage in such conduct.

Athletic Program Hazing & Abuse

Hazing is not confined to Greek life. High-profile athletic programs, often with immense institutional support and deeply ingrained traditions, can also be environments for systemic abuse.

• Northwestern University Football (2023–2025): This scandal erupted when former football players alleged widespread sexualized, racist, and physically abusive hazing within the highly-regarded program over multiple years. The claims included forced sexual acts, degrading rituals, and physical abuse. Multiple players sued Northwestern University and the coaching staff, leading to the high-profile firing of head coach Pat Fitzgerald, who subsequently filed his own wrongful-termination suit (later settled confidentially). Takeaway for Texas families: The Northwestern case is a stark reminder that hazing extends far beyond Greek life, permeating major athletic programs. It raises critical questions about institutional oversight and the responsibility of universities to protect student-athletes.

What These National Cases Mean for Burleson County Families in Texas

The common threads running through these anchor stories are clear and disturbing: forced alcohol consumption, physical abuse and beatings, psychological humiliation, deliberate delays in medical care, and concerted efforts to cover up incidents. While reforms and multi-million-dollar settlements often follow only after tragedy and determined litigation, they set powerful precedents.

For Burleson County families whose children attend or are considering attending universities like UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, or Baylor, these national lessons are directly relevant. They show strong patterns of institutional negligence, the foreseeability of hazing injuries and deaths, and the legal tools available to seek justice. When you face hazing at a Texas university, you are not alone; you are standing on a legal landscape shaped by these hard-won battles for accountability.

Texas Focus: UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, Baylor

For families in Burleson County, whether your child attends college far or near, understanding the specific context of hazing at Texas’s major universities is essential. Burleson County, situated in the heart of Texas, is home to students who often attend schools in the Houston, College Station, or Austin areas. This section delves into the nuances of hazing at five prominent Texas institutions, guiding you through their specific cultures, policies, and recorded incidents, with logistical considerations tailored for a Burleson County perspective.

For those in Burleson County, your children might attend Texas A&M in College Station, a relatively short drive away, or the University of Houston in the state’s largest city. Others might choose the flagship University of Texas at Austin, or private schools like SMU in Dallas or Baylor in Waco. Regardless of location, the legal principles of hazing apply, but the campus context can significantly impact how incidents unfold and how cases proceed.

5.1 University of Houston (UH)

The University of Houston, a vibrant urban campus located in the heart of the nation’s fourth-largest city, is a common choice for students from Burleson County seeking degrees in a bustling metropolis. Its active Greek life, including IFC, Panhellenic, NPHC, and multicultural fraternities and sororities, offers diverse social opportunities, but also presents potential risks.

5.1.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot (with Burleson County Connection)

UH is a large, diverse institution with a mix of commuter and residential students. Its close ties to Houston’s industries and cultural centers make it an attractive option. For families in Burleson County, sending a child to UH means they’ll be part of a dynamic, often fast-paced environment. Campus traditions, while celebrated, can sometimes intersect with hazing practices hidden from public view.

5.1.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

The University of Houston maintains a strict anti-hazing policy. Their regulations broadly prohibit any act, on or off campus, that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation or affiliation. This includes prohibitions on forced consumption of alcohol, food, or drugs, sleep deprivation, physical mistreatment, and acts causing mental distress. UH provides several reporting channels through the Dean of Students office, the Office of Student Conduct, and the UH Police Department (UHPD). They also publish anti-hazing statements and some disciplinary information on their various websites, reflecting their commitment to compliance with Texas state law, including Texas Education Code § 37.156 which mandates reporting.

5.1.3 Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

UH has a history of responding to hazing allegations. A notable incident involved Pi Kappa Alpha in 2016, where pledges were allegedly deprived of food, water, and sleep during an event. One student reportedly suffered a lacerated spleen after being slammed onto a table as part of the hazing. The chapter faced misdemeanor hazing charges from local authorities and a university suspension, highlighting the severe physical risks involved. While not as transparent as UT’s public log, UH’s disciplinary actions over the years demonstrate ongoing efforts to address hazing, primarily through chapter suspensions and probation for violations involving alcohol misuse and conduct “likely to produce mental or physical discomfort.”

5.1.4 How a UH Hazing Case Might Proceed (mentioning Burleson County Logistics)

A hazing incident involving a student from Burleson County at UH could involve several agencies. Criminal investigations would likely be handled by the UH Police Department or the Houston Police Department, depending on where the incident occurred in the vast Houston metropolitan area. Civil lawsuits, if filed, would proceed in the state or federal courts with jurisdiction over Houston and Harris County. For Burleson County families, this means understanding the legal and logistical complexities of litigating in a major urban center, including identifying experienced legal counsel familiar with Harris County court procedures. Potential defendants could include individual students, the local chapter, the national fraternity or sorority, and potentially the university itself, along with any property owners involved.

5.1.5 What UH Students & Parents Should Do

For students from Burleson County attending UH, and their parents:

• Familiarize yourselves with UH’s specific reporting mechanisms, including the Dean of Students’ office, UHPD, and any online anonymous reporting forms.
• Document any suspicious activity immediately. Screenshot group chats from GroupMe or WhatsApp, photograph any injuries, and meticulously record dates, times, and names.
• If your child is experiencing hazing, emphasize that their safety is paramount. The amnesty provisions in Texas law (even if imperfect in practice) are designed to protect those who call for help.
• Contact a lawyer experienced in Houston-based hazing cases as soon as you suspect a problem. This level of expertise can be critical in uncovering prior disciplinary actions, obtaining internal university files, and dealing with powerful institutions.
• Never hesitate to call 1-888-ATTY-911 for guidance, particularly given the speed with which evidence can disappear in a densely populated urban environment like Houston.

5.2 Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University in College Station is a deeply tradition-bound institution, revered by families across Texas, including many in Burleson County. Its unique blend of academic rigor, spirited community, and the storied Corps of Cadets, however, has also presented challenges regarding hazing.

5.2.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot (with Burleson County Connection)

Texas A&M’s strong sense of tradition, loyalty, and the pervasive “Aggie Spirit” define its culture. For Burleson County residents, College Station is a hub of activity and pride, drawing many children from the surrounding region. The Corps of Cadets, a deeply hierarchical and military-style program, is a cornerstone of this culture. While instilling valuable leadership skills, this environment, alongside Greek life and other student organizations, has historically faced scrutiny over hazing due to the potential for abuse of power disguised as “tradition” or “discipline.”

5.2.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

Texas A&M absolutely prohibits hazing, articulating clear definitions and consequences aligned with Texas Education Code § 37.151. Their policy applies to all university-recognized organizations and activities, both on and off campus. Reporting channels include the Department of Student Conduct, the Texas A&M University Police Department (TAMU PD), and an online hazing report form. The university also emphasizes its commitment to the state’s hazing statutes, including the non-defense of consent.

5.2.3 Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

Texas A&M has faced multiple hazing allegations across its diverse student groups.

• In 2021, a significant incident involved Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) where two pledges alleged being subjected to extreme physical hazing. They claimed industrial-strength cleaner, along with eggs and other substances, was poured on them during forced strenuous activity. The result was severe chemical burns that required skin graft surgeries. The SAE chapter was suspended by the university, and the pledges pursued a civil lawsuit seeking over $1 million in damages, demonstrating how brutal and damaging physical hazing can be.
• More recently, in 2023, a lawsuit was filed alleging degrading hazing within the Corps of Cadets. A cadet claimed he was forced into simulated sexual acts and tied between beds in a “roasted pig” pose with an apple in his mouth. He sought over $1 million in damages, shining a light on how some “traditions” within the Corps can cross the line into illegal hazing. This case highlighted the challenge of distinguishing between legitimate military-style discipline and abuse.
• Ongoing litigation, such as a 2023 case involving Kappa Sigma, includes allegations of hazing resulting in severe injuries like rhabdomyolysis – a dangerous muscle breakdown from extreme physical exertion, further emphasizing the potentially life-threatening nature of hazing at A&M.

5.2.4 How a Texas A&M Hazing Case Might Proceed (mentioning Burleson County Logistics)

A hazing case at Texas A&M involving a student from Burleson County would primarily involve the TAMU Police Department initially, or the College Station Police Department if off-campus. Civil suits would likely be filed in Brazos County courts, given that College Station is in Brazos County. For Burleson County families, College Station is geographically close, making court appearances more manageable than in some other Texas cities. However, the unique culture of A&M, particularly the Corps of Cadets, can present specific challenges in terms of witness cooperation and institutional defense tactics rooted in traditions. Potential defendants remain the individuals, chapter, national organization, and the university itself.

5.2.5 What Texas A&M Students & Parents Should Do

For Burleson County students at Texas A&M and their families:

• Understand the specific reporting paths, including the Department of Student Conduct, TAMU PD, and online forms. Pay close attention to reports related to both Greek life and Corps activities.
• Recognize that “tradition” is no excuse for hazing. If your child is asked to do anything dangerous, humiliating, or illegal, it is hazing regardless of historical context.
• Act quickly to preserve all digital evidence, especially GroupMe messages, which are often used in A&M student groups.
• If your child is in the Corps of Cadets, make sure they understand the line between legitimate military discipline and unlawful hazing. Call us if you’re unsure.
• Given the complexity and the unique institutional culture, contacting an experienced hazing attorney who understands both Texas law and the specific dynamics of Texas A&M is crucial. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 for immediate guidance.

5.3 University of Texas at Austin (UT)

The University of Texas at Austin, a sprawling flagship institution situated in the state capital, draws a significant number of students from Burleson County and across the state. Its vibrant campus life, renowned academics, and large fraternity and sorority system make it a dynamic, yet sometimes risky, environment.

5.3.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

UT Austin boasts a sprawling campus with a rich academic and social life, including a large and active Greek system. Its location in the state capital often places it at the center of public attention, and the university has historically faced scrutiny over hazing and misconduct. For families from Burleson County, UT represents a top-tier educational opportunity, but also necessitates an awareness of the potential for hazing, especially within its extensive network of student organizations.

5.3.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

The University of Texas at Austin strictly prohibits hazing, adhering to and often exceeding the requirements of Texas Education Code Chapter 37. Their policies explicitly apply to both on-campus and off-campus activities and emphasize that consent is not a defense against hazing charges. UT is notably one of the most transparent universities in Texas regarding hazing. They maintain a public Hazing Violations webpage that lists organizations, dates of incidents, a description of the conduct, and the sanctions imposed. This public log is an invaluable tool for families researching campus safety. Reporting channels include the Dean of Students, the University of Texas Police Department (UTPD), and various online reporting forms.

5.3.3 Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

UT Austin’s public Hazing Violations page is a chilling testament to the persistence of hazing. While too numerous to list individually, some patterns emerge:

• Pi Kappa Alpha (Pike) was sanctioned in 2023 after new members were directed to consume milk and perform strenuous calisthenics. This incident resulted in the chapter being placed on probation and required to implement new hazing-prevention education.
• Other groups, including fraternities like Sigma Alpha Epsilon, and spirit organizations such as Texas Cowboys and “Absolute Texxas,” have faced sanctions for varying hazing offenses. These include forced workouts, alcohol-related hazing, blindfolding, kidnapping pledges, and other punishment-based and degrading practices that constitute hazing.
• The publicly available record allows clear demonstrations of repeated violations by certain organizations, showing patterns of misconduct despite prior sanctions.

5.3.4 How a UT Hazing Case Might Proceed (mentioning Burleson County Logistics)

A hazing incident involving a student from Burleson County at UT would likely involve the UT Police Department (UTPD) for on-campus incidents or the Austin Police Department for off-campus events. Civil lawsuits would typically be filed in the state or federal courts within Travis County, where Austin is located. Given Austin’s distance from Burleson County, families would need legal representation well-versed in Travis County court procedures. UT’s public hazing log is a critical piece of evidence. In civil litigation, this log can allow attorneys to demonstrate that the university had clear prior knowledge of an organization’s hazing history, thereby strengthening arguments of negligent supervision and failure to intervene.

5.3.5 What UT Students & Parents Should Do

For Burleson County students at UT and their families:

• Regularly check UT’s public Hazing Violations webpage to stay informed about organizations you or your child might be interested in. This is a powerful tool for prevention.
• Understand UT’s clear reporting channels and consider the importance of making a formal report to the Dean of Students or UTPD.
• Document everything. UT’s policies make it clear that evidence, especially digital, is crucial. If your child is involved in an incident, ensure group chats and text messages are preserved.
• Be aware that while UT is transparent, resolving incidents through campus disciplinary processes alone may not provide full legal recourse.
• Contact an attorney familiar with UT’s policies and the Travis County legal system promptly. The Manginello Law Firm, with offices in Austin and Houston, is well-positioned to assist families navigating UT hazing incidents. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 for guidance.

5.4 Southern Methodist University (SMU)

Southern Methodist University, a private institution in Dallas, is known for its strong academic programs and a robust Greek life. Students from throughout Texas, including Burleson County, may find themselves drawn to SMU’s vibrant campus culture, making an understanding of its hazing risks paramount.

5.4.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

SMU cultivates a distinctive culture, often associated with a vibrant social scene, a competitive academic environment, and a prominent Greek life presence. For families in Burleson County, SMU represents another prestigious educational option, but one where the strong influence of fraternities and sororities can mean heightened hazing risks if not properly managed. Its private university status means its internal processes can differ from public institutions.

5.4.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

SMU strictly prohibits hazing, articulating clear definitions and consequences consistent with Texas state law. Their policy applies to all student organizations, whether on or off campus, and includes specific prohibitions against physical abuse, coerced alcohol consumption, and psychological degradation. SMU utilizes reporting forms and emphasizes anonymous systems like Real Response to encourage students to come forward. Their Greek Life office works to educate members on hazing prevention, but like all institutions, they face the challenge of enforcement.

5.4.3 Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

SMU has also encountered hazing incidents over the years, though disciplinary actions for private universities are often less publicly detailed than for state-funded schools.

• A notable incident in 2017 involved Kappa Alpha Order (KA), where new members were reportedly subjected to paddling, forced alcohol consumption, and sleep deprivation. The chapter was suspended by the university and faced restrictions on recruiting, highlighting the persistence of traditional, physical hazing methods.
• Various other fraternities and sororities have faced university sanctions, ranging from probation to suspension, for hazing violations involving alcohol, forced activities, and psychological manipulation.

5.4.4 How an SMU Hazing Case Might Proceed (mentioning Burleson County Logistics)

A hazing case at SMU involving a student from Burleson County would primarily involve the SMU Police Department for on-campus incidents or the Dallas Police Department for events off-campus in the Dallas metropolitan area. Civil lawsuits would typically be filed in state or federal courts within Dallas County. Given Dallas’s distance from Burleson County, legal proceedings would require experienced counsel familiar with Dallas County’s judicial system. As a private university, SMU does not have the same sovereign immunity protections as public institutions, potentially simplifying certain aspects of civil litigation, though powerful private institutions still mount vigorous defenses.

5.4.5 What SMU Students & Parents Should Do

For Burleson County students at SMU and their families:

• Be aware of SMU’s hazing policies and the available anonymous reporting systems. Utilize these resources if hazing is suspected.
• Understand that SMU, being a private institution, may have internal disciplinary processes that differ from public universities. Legal counsel can help navigate these.
• Document everything meticulously. Digital evidence from group chats and social media is often crucial in these cases.
• If your child experiences hazing at SMU, prioritize their safety and well-being. Seek medical attention immediately if necessary.
• Contact an experienced hazing attorney who understands the unique legal landscape of private university litigation in Texas. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 for a confidential consultation.

5.5 Baylor University

Baylor University, a private Baptist university in Waco, is steeped in its faith-based mission and traditions. Students from Burleson County and across Texas are attracted to its renowned programs and close-knit community. However, Baylor has also faced significant institutional challenges and scrutiny regarding student safety and misconduct, including hazing.

5.5.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

Baylor’s culture is deeply influenced by its Christian mission, creating a unique environment distinct from most public universities. For Burleson County families, Baylor represents a strong academic choice grounded in faith. However, the university has, in recent years, grappled with and been publicly criticized for its handling of sexual assault cases (particularly within its football program), which has heightened scrutiny over its student safety protocols and institutional oversight more broadly, including hazing.

5.5.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

Baylor University strictly prohibits hazing, defining it broadly in alignment with Texas law. Their policies cover all student organizations, athletic teams, and fraternities and sororities, both on and off campus. Baylor emphasizes a “zero tolerance” approach to hazing. Reporting channels include the Baylor Department of Student Activities, the Baylor Police Department (BUPD), and its Title IX office (for cases involving gender-based misconduct). The university also provides counseling and support services for students affected by hazing.

5.5.3 Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

Baylor’s institutional challenges, particularly concerning its football program and Title IX issues, have brought greater attention to student safety across campus. While hazing incidents may not always receive the same public attention as other forms of misconduct, they have occurred:

• In 2020, the Baylor baseball team faced a hazing investigation that resulted in the suspension of 14 players, with suspensions staggered throughout the early season. This incident underscored that hazing is not confined to Greek life but can be prevalent in athletic departments.
• Other fraternities and sororities have periodically faced disciplinary action for hazing, with allegations often involving prohibited alcohol use, forced activities, and conduct designed to create imbalance and humiliation. These incidents are seen against the backdrop of Baylor’s broader efforts to improve institutional oversight and student well-being.

5.5.4 How a Baylor Hazing Case Might Proceed (mentioning Burleson County Logistics)

A hazing case at Baylor involving a student from Burleson County would primarily involve the Baylor Police Department (BUPD) for on-campus incidents or the Waco Police Department for events occurring off-campus. Civil lawsuits would typically be filed in state or federal courts within McLennan County, where Waco is located. For Burleson County families, Waco is a relatively accessible city, but requires counsel familiar with McLennan County courts. As a private university, Baylor does not benefit from sovereign immunity, making it a more direct target for negligence claims. However, its significant resources mean it can mount a robust defense. The context of Baylor’s previous institutional scandals can be highly relevant in arguments about foreseeability and institutional negligence in hazing cases.

5.4.5 What Baylor Students & Parents Should Do

For Burleson County students at Baylor and their families:

• Prioritize open communication about experiences in student organizations, Greek life, or athletic teams.
• Understand Baylor’s specific policies and reporting mechanisms, including the Department of Student Activities and BUPD.
• Recognize that hazing often thrives on secrecy. If your child is being pressured to keep activities hidden, it is a significant red flag.
• Familiarize yourselves with the broader institutional context at Baylor, especially concerning student safety and accountability, as this may be relevant to any hazing claim.
• Contact an experienced hazing attorney who grasps the intricacies of private university litigation and the specific challenges presented by a Baylor hazing incident. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 for confidential advice.

Fraternities & Sororities: Campus-Specific + National Histories

For Burleson County families grappling with a hazing incident, it can feel like an isolated tragedy. However, the truth is most fraternities and sororities operating at UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, and Baylor are part of vast national organizations, and these national entities often have disturbing histories of similar misconduct that is critically relevant to any legal claim.

Why National Histories Matter

The reality for many fraternities and sororities—such as Pi Kappa Alpha (Pike), Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE), Phi Delta Theta, Pi Kappa Phi, or Kappa Alpha Order—is that they are chapters of large national (or even international) organizations. These national headquarters frequently boast of thick anti-hazing manuals, extensive risk management policies, and comprehensive training programs. Why? Because they have repeatedly witnessed deaths, catastrophic injuries, and devastating lawsuits stemming from hazing across their campus networks. They know the patterns: the forced drinking nights, the physical beatings, the humiliating rituals, and the code of silence that perpetuates them.

When a specific chapter at Texas A&M, UT, or UH repeats the same dangerous playbook that led to another chapter being shut down or sued in Ohio or Florida, it strongly establishes foreseeability. This pattern evidence is crucial in supporting arguments of negligence or gross negligence, potentially opening the door to punitive damages against national entities. It demonstrates that the national organization had prior knowledge of these risks and, despite their policies, failed to effectively prevent them.

Organization Mapping (Synthesizing National and Local Risks)

While not an exhaustive list, here’s how some well-known national hazing issues connect to chapters found at Texas universities:

• Pi Kappa Alpha (ΠΚΑ / Pike): This fraternity has chapters at the University of Houston, Texas A&M, UT Austin, and Baylor. Nationally, Pike is notoriously associated with significant hazing incidents, most tragically the Stone Foltz death at Bowling Green State University involving forced alcohol consumption, which resulted in a $10 million settlement ($7M from national, $3M from BGSU). There was also the David Bogenberger death at Northern Illinois ($14M settlement) and UT Austin’s Pike chapter has recently faced sanctions for hazing violations. This pattern makes a compelling case that the national organization has a long-standing awareness of the dangers of its “pledge” events.
• Sigma Alpha Epsilon (ΣΑΕ / SAE): SAE has a presence at the University of Houston, Texas A&M, and UT Austin. Nationally, SAE has a highly problematic history with multiple hazing-related deaths and severe injuries, including the tragic death of Carson Starkey and the University of Alabama’s traumatic brain injury case. In Texas, their chapter at Texas A&M was involved in a 2021 lawsuit where pledges alleged chemical burns from industrial-strength cleaner poured on them during hazing, requiring skin grafts. UT Austin’s SAE chapter has also faced allegations, most recently a 2024 lawsuit by an exchange student alleging assault at a party while the chapter was under suspension. These repeated incidents underscore the national organization’s ongoing challenges.
• Phi Delta Theta (ΦΔΘ): With chapters at the University of Houston, Texas A&M, UT Austin, and Baylor, Phi Delta Theta was a defendant in the tragic Max Gruver death at LSU, where Gruver died from alcohol poisoning during a “Bible study” drinking game. A jury later awarded the family a $6.1 million verdict against one of the individuals involved. This incident highlights the national organization’s direct connection to a widely publicized hazing fatality.
• Pi Kappa Phi (ΠΚΦ): Chapters exist at the University of Houston, Texas A&M, and UT Austin. Nationally, Pi Kappa Phi was involved in the death of Andrew Coffey at Florida State University, where he died from alcohol poisoning during a “Big Brother Night” event. This case, like others, involved severe forced alcohol consumption.
• Kappa Alpha Order (ΚΑ): Present at Texas A&M and SMU. Their SMU chapter was suspended in 2017 after reports of paddling, forced alcohol consumption, and sleep deprivation. While these incidents may not always result in deaths, they demonstrate a pattern of traditional, physically abusive hazing methods.
• Beta Theta Pi (ΒΘΠ): With chapters at the University of Houston, Texas A&M, SMU, and Baylor. This fraternity was at the center of the devastating Timothy Piazza death at Penn State, resulting in severe criminal and civil actions. This national case sets a grim standard for institutional failure to address hazing.
• Kappa Sigma (ΚΣ): Chapters are found at the University of Houston, Texas A&M, and Baylor. Nationally, Kappa Sigma was held liable for the Chad Meredith drowning death at the University of Miami, resulting in a $12.6 million jury verdict based on hazing. More recently, the Texas A&M chapter has faced allegations of hazing causing rhabdomyolysis.
• Sigma Chi (ΣΧ): With a presence at the University of Houston, Texas A&M, and Baylor, this fraternity was involved in a recent case at the College of Charleston where a pledge alleged physical beatings and forced consumption, resulting in a multi-million dollar settlement (reportedly over $10M). Another case at UT Arlington resulted in a settlement after a pledge was hospitalized for alcohol poisoning.

Tie Back to Legal Strategy

These patterns across states and campuses are not coincidental; they are critical evidence. They help demonstrate that certain organizations have faced repeated warnings but have failed to enact effective change. In court, this can strengthen arguments that national organizations:

• Were negligent in their supervision of local chapters.
• Failed to meaningfully enforce their own anti-hazing policies, rendering them mere “paper policies.”
• Had foreseeable knowledge that their chapters were engaging in high-risk activities.

This evidence profoundly impacts several facets of a legal strategy:

• Settlement Leverage: A documented history of hazing strengthens a plaintiff’s position and often increases the likelihood of a substantial settlement as defendants seek to avoid a public trial where their history would be exposed.
• Insurance Coverage Disputes: Insurers often try to deny coverage for “intentional acts” like hazing. However, a pattern of prior incidents can show that the national organization’s negligent failure to prevent the hazing is covered, forcing the insurer to pay.
• Punitive Damages: In egregious cases, where a national organization shows a callous disregard for known risks, pattern evidence can support claims for punitive damages, designed to punish misconduct and deter future bad acts (though these are capped in Texas).

For Burleson County families considering legal action, the deep dive into a national organization’s history is not about character assassination; it’s about proving institutional liability and demonstrating a systemic failure to protect students across the country.

Building a Case: Evidence, Damages, Strategy

For any Burleson County family seeking justice for hazing, building a robust legal case is a meticulous process that combines forensic investigation with a deep understanding of legal principles. At The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC, our approach is comprehensive, from the first piece of evidence gathered to the final resolution.

7.1 Evidence: The Foundation of Every Claim

Modern hazing cases are often won or lost based on the quality and breadth of evidence—and the speed at which it is secured. Our firm excels at uncovering and preserving crucial information, especially digital evidence.

• Digital Communications: This is often the most critical category. GroupMe, WhatsApp, iMessage, Discord, Snapchat, Instagram DMs, and even fraternity-specific apps are where hazing plans are made, documented, and often celebrated. We meticulously secure:
  • Screenshots of full threads with timestamps and participant names.
  • Recovered/deleted messages through digital forensics experts, showing what perpetrators tried to hide.
  • Voice memos or screen recordings created by victims or witnesses (legal in Texas, a one-party consent state).
• Photos & Videos: Beyond what victims or witnesses record, we investigate:
  • Content shared in group chats, social media, or private online forums.
  • Security camera footage from houses, venues, or campus locations (e.g., Ring doorbell cams).
  • Injury photos taken immediately and over time to show progression, often with a ruler or coin for scale.
• Internal Organization Documents: Through legal discovery, we compel the release of:
  • Pledge manuals, initiation scripts, ritual “traditions” lists, or any documentation outlining new member activities.
  • Emails, texts, or internal communications from officers about “what we’ll do to pledges.”
  • National policies and training materials, which often contradict local chapter behavior, highlighting a failure to enforce.
• University Records: We aggressively pursue:
  • Prior conduct files related to the specific chapter or organization, showing a history of probation, suspensions, or warning letters.
  • Incident reports filed with campus police or student conduct offices.
  • Clery reports and similar safety disclosures that might reveal patterns.
  • Internal emails among administrators discussing the organization, often revealing prior knowledge.
• Medical and Psychological Records: These document the extent of the harm:
  • Emergency room and hospitalization records, proving immediate injury and intoxication levels (e.g., toxicology reports).
  • Surgery, rehabilitation, and long-term treatment notes.
  • Psychological evaluations, critical for establishing trauma like PTSD, depression, anxiety, or suicidality.
• Witness Testimony: We identify and interview:
  • Other pledges, current members, former members, roommates, Resident Advisors (RAs), coaches, and bystanders.
  • Critically, we protect cooperating witnesses and help them navigate potential intimidation.

7.2 Damages: Recovering from the Harm

In a civil hazing lawsuit, the goal is to recover “damages” – monetary compensation – that accounts for all the harm suffered. For Burleson County families, this means understanding the full scope of what can be claimed.

• Medical Bills & Future Care: This covers all costs, from immediate emergency room visits and ambulance transport to surgeries, ongoing therapy (physical, occupational, psychological), medications, and long-term care plans for catastrophic injuries (e.g., life-long care for a brain injury victim).
• Lost Earnings / Educational Impact: This includes lost wages if the student (or a parent caring for them) missed work, tuition and fees for deferred or dropped semesters, and the long-term impact of delayed graduation or permanent injury on future earning capacity.
• Non-Economic Damages: These address subjective, yet profoundly real, forms of suffering:
  • Physical Pain and Suffering: The agony of injuries, and any ongoing chronic pain.
  • Emotional Distress and Psychological Harm: The trauma of the hazing, leading to conditions like PTSD, depression, or anxiety. This also includes the humiliation, shame, and loss of dignity.
  • Loss of Enjoyment of Life: The inability to participate in hobbies, social activities, or fully experience college life, along with strained relationships.
• Wrongful Death Damages (for Families): In the most tragic cases, close family members (spouses, children, and parents) can seek:
  • Funeral and burial costs.
  • Loss of financial support the deceased would have provided.
  • Loss of companionship, love, guidance, and society.
  • The severe grief and emotional suffering of the surviving family members.

While we never promise specific dollar amounts, it’s our job to evaluate damages rigorously, often working with economists and medical experts, to ensure a full and fair recovery.

7.3 Role of Different Defendants and Insurance Coverage

Hazing litigation is complex because it often involves multiple defendants, each attempting to shift blame, and intricate insurance coverage disputes.

• Insurance Policies: National fraternities, universities, individual chapter officers, and even parents often carry various insurance policies (commercial general liability, directors and officers, homeowner’s, umbrella policies) that may cover hazing-related claims.
• Defense Tactics: Insurers frequently argue that hazing constitutes “intentional acts” or “criminal” behavior, which are often excluded from coverage. This is a common tactic to deny claims and avoid paying.
• Our Expertise: Our firm, led by Ralph Manginello and bolstered by Lupe Peña’s background as a former insurance defense attorney (https://attorney911.com/attorneys/lupe-pena/), understands these tactics intimately. We know how to:
  • Identify all potential sources of insurance coverage.
  • Confront arguments of exclusion by highlighting negligent supervision or failure to enforce policies rather than simply relying on “intentional act” claims.
  • Force recalcitrant insurers to defend clients or pay settlements.
  • Navigate “bad faith” claims against insurers who wrongfully deny coverage.

Winning a hazing case in Burleson County or anywhere in Texas requires not just proving what happened, but also meticulously connecting that conduct to each responsible party and then fighting to ensure insurance companies fulfill their obligations.

Practical Guides & FAQs

For families in Burleson County, students at Texas A&M or UT Austin, or anyone caught in the nightmare of hazing, actionable advice is paramount. The Manginello Law Firm is committed to equipping you with the knowledge and tools to protect yourselves and your loved ones.

8.1 For Parents

Parents in Burleson County are often the first line of defense against hazing. Knowing key warning signs and how to respond can make all the difference.

• Warning Signs of Hazing:
  • Unexplained injuries (bruises, cuts, burns) or repeated “accidents” with weak excuses.
  • Sudden exhaustion, extreme sleep deprivation, or mandatory late-night activities interfering with academics.
  • Drastic changes in mood, increased anxiety, social withdrawal, or defensiveness when asked about their group.
  • Constant secret phone use for group chats, coupled with fear of missing “mandatory” communications or events.
  • Unexpected financial demands or requests for money without clear explanation.
  • Changes in eating habits (weight loss or gain, an aversion to certain foods).
  • Secretive behavior and statements like “I can’t talk about it,” or “It’s a secret.”
• How to Talk to Your Child:
  • Approach them with empathy, not accusation. Ask open-ended questions like, “How are things really going?” or “Are you feeling okay about all the time commitments?”
  • Emphasize their safety and well-being over secrecy or loyalty to a group. Reassure them you will support them regardless of the situation.
  • Educate them about Texas’s anti-hazing laws and their right to say no.
• If Your Child is Hurt:
  • Prioritize medical care immediately. Do not let fear of “getting in trouble” delay necessary treatment. Texas law offers good-faith reporting protections.
  • Document everything. Photograph injuries, screenshot texts, and meticulously record dates, times, and what your child tells you.
  • Save names, dates, and locations. Every detail can be crucial evidence.
• Dealing with the University:
  • Document every communication you have with university administrators, including who you spoke to, when, and what was discussed.
  • Ask specific questions about prior incidents involving the same organization and what the school did (or didn’t do) in response.
• When to Talk to a Lawyer:
  • If your child has suffered significant physical or psychological harm.
  • If you feel the university or organization is minimizing what happened, stonewalling you, or hiding information.
  • If you are unsure of your rights or need guidance on documenting evidence. An urgent phone call to 1-888-ATTY-911 can make a critical difference.

8.2 For Students / Pledges

To students in Burleson County and across Texas, especially those in the midst of initiation processes: your safety, dignity, and well-being are more important than membership in any group.

• Is this Hazing or Just Tradition? If you are being asked to do anything that makes you feel unsafe, humiliated, or coerced; if you are forced to drink or endure physical pain beyond reasonable limits; if the activity is kept hidden from the public, administrators, or your parents – it is likely hazing, regardless of how it’s framed.
• Why “Consent” Isn’t the End of the Story: Groups will often claim “everyone consented.” However, under intense peer pressure, fear of exclusion, and the desire to belong, true voluntary consent is often impossible. The law, especially in Texas, recognizes that “consent” given under duress is not valid (Texas Education Code § 37.155).
• Exiting and Reporting Safely:
  • Your immediate safety is paramount. If you are in physical danger, call 911 or campus police immediately.
  • You have the right to leave any pledging process at any time without penalty or social retribution.
  • Consider confiding in a trusted adult (parent, RA, academic advisor, counselor) who can support you.
  • Many schools and Texas law (through good-faith reporting provisions) offer amnesty for students who seek help in an emergency, even if underage drinking or drug use was involved.
• Good-Faith Reporting and Amnesty: These provisions are designed to encourage you to seek help without fear of getting into trouble. If you are ever in a situation where someone needs medical attention or you are being forced into something dangerous, call for help.

8.3 For Former Members / Witnesses

To anyone in Burleson County or beyond who participated in hazing or witnessed it, and now carries the burden of knowing what happened: your decision to come forward can be life-saving.

• Acknowledge Your Feelings: It’s common to feel guilt, fear of retaliation, or shame for past involvement. These feelings are valid, but they do not diminish the importance of speaking up.
• Your Testimony Matters: Your perspective and evidence can be the key to preventing future harm, holding perpetrators accountable, and saving another student from suffering. It can break the cycle of abuse.
• Seek Legal Counsel: If you were involved, or even just witnessed hazing, you may have your own criminal or civil exposure. It is wise to seek your own legal advice before speaking to campus authorities or police. A confidential consultation with Attorney911 (1-888-ATTY-911) can help you understand your rights and how voluntary cooperation might affect your situation. We can help you navigate your role as a witness or even as a co-defendant, ensuring your best interests are protected while working towards accountability.

8.4 Critical Mistakes That Can Destroy Your Case

The pursuit of justice in hazing cases is fraught with pitfalls. Knowing and avoiding these common mistakes is critical for any Burleson County family. Our firm’s video “Client Mistakes That Can Ruin Your Injury Case” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3IYsoxOSxY) further elaborates on these.

1. Letting your child delete messages or “clean up” evidence.
   • Why it’s wrong: While understandable that a child might want to erase embarrassing content or suppress fear of consequences, actively deleting evidence can look like a cover-up, makes a legal case nearly impossible, and can even be considered obstruction.
   • What to do instead: Preserve everything immediately, no matter how trivial or embarrassing. Digital forensics might recover deleted items, but original screenshots are gold.
2. Confronting the fraternity/sorority directly.
   • Why it’s wrong: Your anger is justified, but a direct confrontation will cause the organization to immediately “lawyer up,” destroy evidence, coach witnesses, and prepare robust defenses.
   • What to do instead: Document everything in private, then consult with an attorney before any such confrontation. Let your legal team handle all communications.
3. Signing university “release” or “resolution” forms.
   • Why it’s wrong: Universities often present seemingly benign forms or pressure families into “internal resolutions” or waivers. These documents can waive your child’s right to pursue legal action, and any university settlement is often a fraction of what an independent lawsuit might achieve.
   • What to do instead: NEVER sign anything from the university or an insurance company without an experienced hazing attorney reviewing it first.
4. Posting details on social media before talking to a lawyer.
   • Why it’s wrong: While you want justice and awareness, anything posted publicly can be screenshot by defense attorneys, used to undermine credibility through perceived inconsistencies, and may unknowingly waive certain legal privileges.
   • What to do instead: Document everything privately, and allow your legal team to control any public messaging strategy.
5. Letting your child go back to “one last meeting.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Organizations might try to lure pledges back for a meeting “just to talk” or “clear the air” before they take legal action. This is often a tactic to pressure, intimidate, or elicit statements that can be used against them.
   • What to do instead: Once you are considering legal action, all communication from the organization should be directed through your attorney.
6. Waiting “to see how the university handles it.”
   • Why it’s wrong: While universities do conduct investigations, they are often slow, limited in scope, and primarily concerned with protecting the institution, not maximizing a victim’s legal recovery. Evidence disappears rapidly, witnesses graduate, and crucial deadlines (statute of limitations) can pass.
   • What to do instead: Preserve all evidence NOW. Consult a lawyer immediately. The university’s internal process is distinct from achieving full legal accountability.
7. Talking to insurance adjusters without a lawyer.
   • Why it’s wrong: Insurance adjusters, representing the defendant’s interests, are trained to get recorded statements or information that can undermine your claim or lead to a lowball settlement.
   • What to do instead: Politely decline to speak with them and state, “My attorney will contact you.”

8.5 Short FAQ

“Can I sue a university for hazing in Texas?”
Yes, under certain circumstances. Public universities (like UH, Texas A&M, and UT) have some sovereign immunity protection under Texas law, but exceptions exist for gross negligence, Title IX violations, and when suing individual employees in their personal capacity. Private universities (such as SMU and Baylor) generally have fewer immunity protections. Every case is unique, depending on specific facts. Contact Attorney911 at 1-888-ATTY-911 for a case-specific analysis.

“Is hazing a felony in Texas?”
It can be, yes. While hazing is typically a Class B misdemeanor, it elevates to a state jail felony under Texas law if the act of hazing causes serious bodily injury or death. This means jail time and significant fines are possible. Furthermore, individuals in leadership positions who fail to report hazing can also face criminal charges.

“Can my child bring a case if they ‘agreed’ to the initiation?”
Absolutely. Texas Education Code § 37.155 explicitly states that consent is not a defense to hazing. The law recognizes that “agreement” under intense peer pressure, power imbalance, and fear of exclusion is not true voluntary consent. Your child is a victim, regardless of perceived “consent.”

“How long do we have to file a hazing lawsuit in Texas?”
Generally, the statute of limitations for personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits in Texas is two years from the date of injury or death. However, the “discovery rule” may extend this if the harm or its cause was not immediately apparent. In cases involving cover-ups or fraud, the statute may be “tolled” (paused). Time is critical—evidence disappears, witnesses’ memories fade, and organizations destroy records. It is vital to contact Attorney911 at 1-888-ATTY-911 immediately to protect your rights.

“What if the hazing happened off-campus or at a private house?”
The location of the hazing does not eliminate liability. Universities and national fraternities or organizations can still be held liable based on their sponsorship, control, knowledge, and whether the off-campus hazing was foreseeable. Many major hazing cases that resulted in multi-million-dollar judgments, such as the Pi Delta Psi retreat case or the Sigma Pi incident at an unofficial house, occurred entirely off-campus.

“Will this be confidential, or will my child’s name be in the news?”
We understand the desire for privacy. The majority of hazing cases are resolved through confidential settlements before going to trial. In many situations, it’s possible to request sealed court records and confidential settlement terms. We prioritize your family’s privacy while aggressively pursuing accountability and justice.

Remember, the complexities of hazing law demand expert guidance. While these answers provide general insight, an experienced attorney can review your specific facts, explain your rights under Texas law, and help you understand your unique options.

About The Manginello Law Firm + Call to Action

When your family faces a hazing incident, particularly one involving severe injury or wrongful death, you need more than a general personal injury lawyer. You need attorneys who intimately understand how powerful institutions like national fraternities, universities, and their insurance companies fight back—and how to win anyway. For Burleson County families, navigating this complex legal battle requires a law firm with a proven track record, specific expertise, and profound empathy.

At The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC, operating as Attorney911 and proudly known as the Legal Emergency Lawyers™, we bring unparalleled qualifications to hazing cases across Texas. From our primary office in Houston and additional offices in Austin and Beaumont, we serve clients throughout the state, including Burleson County and the surrounding communities, passionately advocating for victims of campus abuse.

Our unique advantage begins with Lupe Peña, an Associate Attorney at our firm. Her prior experience as a former insurance defense attorney at a national firm provides invaluable insight. She knows exactly how fraternity and university insurance companies value (and often undervalue) hazing claims. She understands their delay tactics, their arguments for denying coverage, and their settlement strategies because she used to run that playbook. This insider knowledge is a formidable asset in your corner.

Ralph Manginello, our Managing Partner, brings an extensive background in complex litigation against massive institutions. He was involved in the landmark BP Texas City explosion litigation—a testament to his capability in taking on billion-dollar corporations and securing justice for victims. This federal court experience (including the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas) means we are not intimidated by national fraternities, powerful universities, or their well-resourced defense teams. We know how to fight powerful defendants and secure multi-million dollar results. His background also includes membership in the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association (HCCLA), giving our firm a unique understanding of how criminal hazing charges interact with civil litigation, allowing us to advise witnesses and former members with dual exposure. Read more about Ralph Manginello’s credentials at https://attorney911.com/attorneys/ralph-manginello/.

We don’t just handle cases; we build them. Our firm has a proven track record of securing multi-million dollar settlements and verdicts in catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases. We don’t settle cheap. We meticulously investigate, collaborate with top experts (medical, digital forensics, economists, psychologists), and craft compelling cases that force accountability. We use our skills to:

• Uncover crucial evidence, such as deleted group chats and social media content, that other firms might miss. View our video on using your phone to document legal cases at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbpzrmogTs.
• Subpoena national fraternity records to expose patterns of prior incidents and systemic failures.
• Access university files through aggressive discovery and public records requests.
• Understand the nuances of Greek culture, institutional traditions, and the psychological dynamics that enable coercion.

We understand this is one of the hardest things a family can face. Our job is to get you answers, hold the right people accountable, and help prevent this from happening to another family. We approach each case with empathy, offering a guiding hand while relentlessly pursuing justice.

Contact Attorney911 Today: Your Advocates in Burleson County and Across Texas

If you or your child has experienced hazing at any Texas campus—whether UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, Baylor, or another institution—we want to hear from you. Families in Burleson County, Caldwell, and throughout the surrounding region have the right to answers, accountability, and fair compensation. You don’t have to face this alone.

Contact The Manginello Law Firm for a confidential, no-obligation consultation. We will provide an honest assessment of your situation, explain your legal options, and help you decide on the best path forward.

What to expect in your free consultation:

• We will listen to your story without judgment.
• We will review any evidence you may have (photos, texts, medical records).
• We will explain your legal options: whether a criminal report, a civil lawsuit, both, or neither, is appropriate for your situation.
• We will discuss realistic timelines and what you can expect during the legal process.
• We will answer your questions about costs, clearly explaining our contingency fee basis – we don’t get paid unless we win your case. Learn more about how contingency fees work at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upcI_j6F7Nc.
• There is no pressure to hire us on the spot – we want you to take the time you need to make an informed decision.
• Everything you tell us is confidential.

Don’t let delay jeopardize your case. As our firm’s video “Is There a Statute of Limitations on My Case?” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRHwg8tV02c) explains, deadlines are critical, and evidence vanishes quickly.

Reach out to the Legal Emergency Lawyers™ today:

• Call: 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911)
• Direct: (713) 528-9070
• Cell: (713) 443-4781
• Website: https://attorney911.com
• Email for Ralph Manginello: ralph@atty911.com

Hablamos Español: Contact Lupe Peña directly for a consultation in Spanish at lupe@atty911.com. Servicios legales en español disponibles.

Whether you’re in Burleson County, navigating the challenges at Texas A&M, or dealing with an incident at any campus across Texas, if hazing has impacted your family, you don’t have to face this alone. Call us today.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC.

Hazing laws, university policies, and legal precedents can change. The information in this guide is current as of late 2025 but may not reflect the most recent developments. Every hazing case is unique, and outcomes depend on the specific facts, evidence, applicable law, and many other factors.

If you or your child has been affected by hazing, we strongly encourage you to consult with a qualified Texas attorney who can review your specific situation, explain your legal rights, and advise you on the best course of action for your family.

The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC / Attorney911
Houston, Austin, and Beaumont, Texas
Call: 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911)
Direct: (713) 528-9070 | Cell: (713) 443-4781
Website: https://attorney911.com
Email: ralph@atty911.com