Hazing in Texas: A Comprehensive Guide for Sherman County Families

The silence in a college dorm room on a Friday night should be a comfort, a signal of rest after a busy week of classes. But for families in Sherman County and across Texas, that silence can sometimes hide a parent’s worst fear. Perhaps it’s a frantic late-night call, a child suddenly withdrawn and secretive, or inexplicable injuries following what was described as a “party” or “initiation ritual.” It’s the familiar, terrifying scenario where a student at a Texas university, perhaps at a fraternity house near campus or an off-campus retreat, is being pushed to their limits—forced to drink far beyond safe levels, endure physical abuse, or perform degrading acts. They might feel trapped, torn between loyalty to a group they desperately want to join and their own safety. Someone gets hurt, collapses, or vomits, but no one wants to call 911, caught in a code of silence stemming from fear of “getting the chapter shut down” or facing “trouble.”

This isn’t just a story; it’s a reality that plays out too often in Texas and across the nation. For families in Sherman County whose children attend or plan to attend universities like the University of Houston, Texas A&M, UT Austin, Southern Methodist University, or Baylor, understanding the hidden dangers of hazing is vital. These incidents don’t just happen to “other people” or at “other schools.” They can affect any student, anytime, anywhere a group demands conformity and obedience at the expense of safety and dignity.

This comprehensive guide is designed for Sherman County families and all Texas residents who need to understand the complex landscape of hazing. We will explore what hazing truly looks like in 2025, moving beyond outdated stereotypes to understand its subtle, psychological, and digital forms. We will break down how Texas and federal law address hazing, providing a clear framework for legal rights and responsibilities. By examining major national hazing cases, we’ll draw critical lessons that apply directly to Texas students and institutions. Crucially, we’ll delve into the specific environments and histories of hazing at the University of Houston, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor. We’ll also show how the national histories of fraternities and sororities contribute to liability and risk for local chapters here in Texas. Finally, we’ll outline the legal options available to victims and their families in Sherman County and throughout Texas, explaining how an experienced legal team can help build a case for accountability and justice.

This article provides general information and is not specific legal advice. The Manginello Law Firm is dedicated to evaluating individual cases based on their unique facts and we serve families throughout Texas, including Sherman County and its surrounding communities.

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, every step matters:

• Get medical attention immediately, even if the student insists they are “fine.” Prioritize their health and safety.
• Preserve evidence BEFORE it’s deleted:
  • Screenshot group chats, texts, and direct messages instantly. Digital evidence is crucial and disappears fast.
  • Photograph any visible injuries from multiple angles and in varying light.
  • Save any physical items related to the hazing (clothing, receipts for forced purchases, specific objects).
• Write down everything while your memory is fresh: who was involved, what exactly happened, when, and where.
• Do NOT:
  • Confront the fraternity, sorority, or organization directly. This can lead to evidence destruction or coached witnesses.
  • Sign anything from the university or an insurance company without legal counsel.
  • Post details about the incident on public social media.
  • Allow your child to delete messages or “clean up” any evidence.

Contact an experienced hazing attorney within 24–48 hours. Evidence disappears rapidly, organizations move quickly to control narratives, and witnesses can be pressured into silence. We can help preserve critical evidence and protect your child’s rights from the outset. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 for an immediate, confidential consultation.

Hazing in 2025: What It Really Looks Like

For many in Sherman County, the word “hazing” might conjure images from decades-old movies—pranks, mild humiliation, perhaps some forced calisthenics. But the reality of hazing in 2025 at Texas universities like UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor is far more insidious, dangerous, and often deeply traumatic. Modern hazing exploits peer pressure, social media, and power dynamics to create coercive environments that can lead to severe physical injury, psychological damage, and even death.

Hazing is 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 that 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. It’s crucial to understand that simply “agreeing” to participate does not make the act safe or legal when there is a clear power imbalance, group pressure, and the implicit threat of exclusion.

Clear, Modern Categories of Hazing

Hazing isn’t a single act; it’s a spectrum of behaviors that can escalate in severity and cause profound harm.

Alcohol and Substance Hazing: This remains the most common and deadliest form of hazing. It involves forcing or coercing new members to consume excessive amounts of alcohol during “lineup” drinking games, “Big/Little” events, or other initiation rituals where sobriety is mocked or punished. Students are made to chug, funnel, or consume entire bottles of liquor. Sometimes, it involves being pressured to consume unknown substances or a dangerous mix of alcohol and other drugs. The aim is often to lower inhibitions and increase vulnerability, leading to severe alcohol poisoning, injury, or death.

Physical Hazing: This category encompasses acts that cause bodily harm or extreme physical discomfort. It can range from traditional paddling and beatings to extreme calisthenics (“smokings” or “workouts” well beyond safe limits). Other tactics include sleep deprivation, food and water restriction, or exposure to harsh environmental conditions like extreme cold or heat. These acts are often framed as “testing commitment” but serve to break down an individual’s will and create psychological dependence on the group.

Sexualized and Humiliating Hazing: These acts are designed to degrade, shame, and embarrass new members, often with a sexual component. Examples include forced nudity or partial nudity, simulated sexual acts (like “elephant walks” or “roasted pig” poses), or being made to wear degrading costumes in public. Such hazing can often have racist, homophobic, or sexist undertones through the use of slurs or forced role-playing of stereotypes, leaving deep emotional scars and potentially violating Title IX protections.

Psychological Hazing: This less visible, but equally damaging, form of hazing involves manipulating a new member’s mental state. It includes verbal abuse, threats, forced social isolation from friends and family, and deliberate intimidation. New members might be subjected to “grilling” sessions where they are incessantly criticized, insulted, or forced to confess personal details. This psychological warfare aims to break down self-esteem, foster absolute obedience, and create a strong, often unhealthy, bond to the group.

Digital/Online Hazing: With the ubiquity of smartphones and social media, hazing has evolved into the digital realm. This includes relentless group chat demands, often requiring instant responses at all hours, leading to sleep deprivation. New members may be forced to post embarrassing content on social media, create viral TikTok videos against their will, or participate in humiliating online “challenges.” Cyberstalking, digital harassment, and even demanding real-time location sharing via apps are increasingly common tactics, allowing older members to exert 24/7 control.

Where Hazing Actually Happens

Hazing is not confined to one type of organization or a specific gender. While fraternities often dominate the headlines, hazing proliferates across a wide array of student groups:

• Fraternities and Sororities: This includes IFC (Interfraternity Council), Panhellenic, NPHC (National Pan-Hellenic Council), and multicultural Greek organizations active at schools like UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, and Baylor.
• Corps of Cadets/ROTC/Military-Style Groups: At institutions like Texas A&M, tradition-heavy, hierarchical groups can foster environments where hazing is mistaken for “discipline.”
• Spirit Squads & Tradition Clubs: Groups like university cheerleading teams, dance teams, or long-standing spirit organizations (e.g., Texas Cowboys-type groups at UT) can sometimes engage in “initiation activities” that cross the line.
• Athletic Teams: From football and basketball to swimming, baseball, and cheerleading, hazing within athletic programs, including those at Northwestern University, has shown that abuse can occur even at the highest levels of collegiate sports.
• Marching Bands and Performance Groups: As seen in the Robert Champion case, marching bands and other performance ensembles can also be environments where hazing rituals are entrenched.
• Academic, Service, and Cultural Organizations: Even groups dedicated to positive missions can develop internal power structures that lead to hazing, showcasing that the dynamic of initiation, rather than the group’s purpose, often predicts hazing risk.

The persistence of hazing, even with increased awareness and legal consequences, is often rooted in the twin forces of social status and secrecy. The desire to belong, to be part of an exclusive group, can make students overlook dangerous practices. The code of silence, reinforced by implicit threats and a distorted sense of loyalty, allows hazing to continue behind closed doors, even when everyone “knows” it’s illegal and destructive.

Law & Liability Framework (Texas + Federal)

For families in Sherman County and across Texas grappling with hazing, understanding the legal landscape is paramount. Texas has specific laws designed to combat hazing, and federal regulations also play a role in compelling universities to act. This framework provides avenues for both criminal prosecution against individuals and organizations, and civil lawsuits for victims seeking compensation and accountability.

Texas Hazing Law Basics (Education Code)

The State of Texas has clear anti-hazing provisions primarily outlined in the Texas Education Code, Chapter 37, Subchapter F. This code broadly defines hazing as 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; OR
• Is for the purpose of pledging, initiation into, affiliation with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization whose members include students.

This definition is crucial because it includes offenses conducted both on or off campus, making the location irrelevant to the illegality of the act. Furthermore, the harm can be to a student’s mental or physical health or safety, acknowledging the profound psychological damage hazing inflicts. Importantly, the law considers an act to be hazing if it was intentional, knowing, or reckless—meaning even if the perpetrators didn’t intend to cause extreme harm, they could be held liable if they acted with reckless disregard for a student’s safety.

Criminal Penalties: Texas law classifies hazing offenses:

• Class B Misdemeanor: This is the default classification, applicable to hazing that doesn’t result in serious injury. Penalties can include up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,000.
• Class A Misdemeanor: If the hazing causes specific types of “bodily injury” requiring medical treatment.
• State Jail Felony: If the hazing causes serious bodily injury or death. This carries more significant penalties, including incarceration in a state jail facility.

Beyond directly participating in hazing, Texas law also imposes criminal penalties for those who fail to act. An officer or member of an organization who has knowledge of hazing but fails to report it can be charged with a misdemeanor. Similarly, retaliation against someone who reports hazing is also a misdemeanor offense.

Organizational Liability: The law extends criminal liability beyond individuals to the organizations themselves. An organization (such as a fraternity, sorority, or club) can face criminal prosecution if it authorized or encouraged the hazing, or if an officer or senior member, acting in their official capacity, knew about the hazing and failed to report it or intervene. Penalties for organizations can include fines of up to $10,000 per violation, and universities often revoke recognition or ban such organizations from campus.

Consent is Not a Defense: A critical aspect of Texas hazing law (Section 37.155) is that consent is explicitly not a defense to prosecution for hazing. This means a perpetrator cannot argue that the victim “agreed to it” or “wanted to participate” as a justification. Courts and legislatures recognize that power imbalances, peer pressure, and the desire to belong make true, uncoerced consent impossible in hazing situations.

Immunity for Good-Faith Reporting: To encourage reporting, Texas law (Section 37.154) grants immunity from civil or criminal liability to individuals who report a hazing incident in good faith to university authorities or law enforcement. This aims to protect students and others who come forward from fear of retribution. Additionally, Texas law, along with many university policies, offers amnesty for students who call 911 or seek medical help in an emergency, even if underage drinking or hazing was involved, prioritizing saving lives.

This summary provides a foundational understanding. The actual statute is more technical, and nuanced interpretations of its provisions are often debated in court.

Criminal vs. Civil Cases

It’s important for Sherman County families to understand that legal action against hazing can take two distinct paths: criminal and civil cases. These pathways differ significantly in their goals, who brings the action, and the potential outcomes.

Criminal Cases:
These cases are initiated by the state, typically through a local prosecutor’s office (e.g., the District Attorney’s Office in Sherman County for local crimes, or the DA where the university is located). The primary goal of a criminal prosecution is to punish individuals or organizations for violating state laws. In hazing incidents, defendants can face charges ranging from misdemeanor hazing to state jail felonies, depending on the severity of the harm. Other criminal charges frequently associated with hazing include assault, furnishing alcohol to minors, and, in tragic cases, manslaughter or negligent homicide. A criminal conviction can result in fines, probation, jail time, or even prison.

Civil Cases:
In contrast, civil cases are brought by victims of hazing, or by their surviving family members in cases of death, against those responsible for the harm. The primary goal of a civil lawsuit is to obtain monetary compensation (damages) for the losses and suffering endured by the victim, and to hold individuals and institutions accountable. Civil hazing lawsuits often allege negligence, gross negligence, wrongful death, negligent supervision, premises liability, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Unlike criminal cases, a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for filing a civil lawsuit. A victim can pursue a civil claim for damages even if no criminal charges are filed or if criminal charges do not result in a conviction.

Both types of cases can run simultaneously, and a criminal conviction can sometimes strengthen a civil claim by establishing certain facts. However, the standards of proof and the objectives are different.

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

Beyond Texas state law, federal regulations also impact how hazing is addressed at universities, providing additional layers of protection and mandates, particularly concerning transparency and prevention.

The Stop Campus Hazing Act (2024), while a recent development, will significantly change the landscape of hazing accountability across the nation. This federal legislation mandates that colleges and universities receiving federal funds must:

• Report hazing incidents much more transparently, including detailed information about specific disciplinary actions taken.
• Strengthen hazing education and prevention programs, moving beyond basic policy statements to comprehensive intervention strategies.
• Maintain and make public aggregated hazing data, similar to how crime statistics are reported under the Clery Act. This public reporting will be phased in over the coming years, likely by around 2026, offering families in Sherman County and elsewhere unprecedented access to institutional track records of hazing violations.

Title IX: This federal law prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. When hazing involves sexual harassment, sexual assault, gender-based hostility, or exploitation (e.g., forced nudity, sexualized acts, or sexist ridicule), it can trigger Title IX obligations. Under Title IX, universities have a responsibility to investigate and respond to such incidents promptly and effectively, whether they occur on or off campus, to ensure a safe educational environment. Failure to do so can lead to serious consequences for the institution, including loss of federal funding.

The Clery Act (Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act): This federal law requires colleges and universities to disclose information about crime on and around their campuses. While hazing itself isn’t a Clery-reportable crime category, many hazing incidents overlap with Clery-reportable crimes such as assault, aggravated assault, or alcohol/drug-related offenses. The Clery Act also emphasizes crime prevention and requires institutions to issue timely warnings about crimes that pose a threat to students, serving as another layer of institutional accountability for campus safety.

For Sherman County families whose children attend Texas universities, these federal laws mean that institutions are increasingly under legal pressure to address hazing proactively and transparently, and that victims have multiple avenues for recourse when hazing leads to harm.

Who Can Be Liable in a Civil Hazing Lawsuit

When a student is harmed by hazing at a Texas university, multiple parties can potentially be held liable in a civil lawsuit. Identifying all responsible parties is critical for maximizing a victim’s recovery and ensuring comprehensive accountability.

• Individual Students: The students who actively participated in, planned, enabled, or failed to intervene in hazing acts can be held personally liable. This includes those who supplied alcohol to minors, physically assaulted a new member, or orchestrated dangerous rituals. In some cases, a Chapter President or other officers can face significant individual liability, as seen in the $6.5 million judgment against a Pi Kappa Alpha president in the Stone Foltz case.

• Local Chapter / Organization: The specific fraternity, sorority, club, or team itself (if it’s a recognized legal entity) can be sued as a defendant. This applies when the organization, through its members or leadership, directly authorized, condoned, or participated in the hazing.

• National Fraternity / Sorority: Many local chapters are part of larger national organizations. The national headquarters can be held liable if there’s evidence they knew or should have known about a pattern of hazing within their chapters, failed to adequately train, supervise, or discipline local chapters, or if their anti-hazing policies were merely “paper policies” lacking real enforcement. Given the recurring nature of certain hazing rituals across different chapters of the same national organization, demonstrating such knowledge and negligence is often a key strategy in these cases.

• University or Governing Board: The university itself, or its governing board (like the Board of Regents for public universities), can be sued. Liability typically hinges on the university’s knowledge of previous hazing incidents, its failure to enforce its own policies, negligent supervision of student organizations, or deliberate indifference to a known risk of harm. For public universities here in Texas (such as UH, Texas A&M, and UT Austin), sovereign immunity can present a barrier, though exceptions exist for gross negligence, certain federal claims (like Title IX), or when individual employees are sued in their personal capacity. Private universities (like SMU and Baylor) often have less robust immunity protections.

• Third Parties: Liability can extend to other entities depending on the facts:

  • Landlords or Property Owners: If hazing occurred at an off-campus house where the owner knew or should have known about dangerous activities, they might be liable under premises liability theories.
  • Providers of Alcohol: Bars, liquor stores, or individuals who illegally furnish alcohol to minors that contributes to a hazing incident can face dram shop liability in Texas.
  • Parent Organizations or Advisors: In some cases, specific parent organizations or adult advisors who were negligent in their oversight can also be named.
  • Security Companies / Event Organizers: If an event was outsourced or had specific security arrangements, negligence within those entities could contribute to liability.

Every hazing case has a unique set of facts, and the potential defendants can vary dramatically. An experienced hazing attorney meticulously investigates all aspects of an incident to identify every party that might bear responsibility, ensuring comprehensive accountability and maximum potential recovery for the victim.

National Hazing Case Patterns (Anchor Stories)

While hazing incidents often make local headlines in Texas and around the country, it’s the pattern of recurrence and the devastating consistency of certain hazing rituals that reveal systemic failures. Lessons from major national hazing cases set crucial precedents, demonstrating how dangerous these practices are, the types of legal accountability possible, and why active prevention and intervention are so critical. These stories highlight the severe consequences of institutional inaction and often catalyze legal and policy changes that can affect students even in Sherman County.

Alcohol Poisoning & Death Pattern

The most common and tragic outcome of hazing often involves forced alcohol consumption, leading to severe alcohol poisoning and death. These cases repeatedly expose similar themes: extreme binge drinking as an initiation rite, deliberate delay in seeking medical help, and a culture of secrecy among members.

• Timothy Piazza – Penn State University, Beta Theta Pi (2017): Timothy Piazza, a 19-year-old pledge, died after a “bid acceptance” night involving extreme alcohol consumption. Security cameras inside the Beta Theta Pi house tragically captured his multiple falls, severe injuries, and the agonizing delay of nearly 12 hours before fraternity brothers called 911. The criminal prosecution resulted in dozens of charges against fraternity members, and the civil litigation against the fraternity yielded confidential settlements. Timothy’s death led to Pennsylvania enacting the Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing Law, one of the toughest in the nation, making hazing a felony and increasing accountability for institutions. This case highlighted that extreme intoxication, delayed medical help, and a pervasive code of silence are a deadly combination.

• Andrew Coffey – Florida State University, Pi Kappa Phi (2017): Andrew Coffey died from acute alcohol poisoning during a “Big Brother Night” event. Pledges were given handles of hard liquor and pressured to consume them quickly. Multiple members faced criminal hazing charges, and FSU temporarily suspended all Greek life activities in response. Coffey’s death spurred a statewide anti-hazing movement in Florida. This incident tragically demonstrated how formulaic “traditional” drinking nights are often a script for disaster.

• Maxwell “Max” Gruver – Louisiana State University, Phi Delta Theta (2017): Max Gruver, an 18-year-old pledge, died from alcohol toxicity during a hazing ritual dubbed “Bible study.” This twisted game involved forced drinking when pledges answered questions incorrectly. His death led to multiple members facing criminal charges, with one convicted of negligent homicide. More significantly, Louisiana passed the Max Gruver Act, a felony hazing statute, which was a direct legislative response to the public outcry and clearPROOF of hazing in his death. This case underscores how legislative change often follows public outrage and undeniable evidence of hazing leading to tragedy.

• Stone Foltz – Bowling Green State University, Pi Kappa Alpha (2021): Stone Foltz, a 20-year-old pledge, was forced to consume an entire bottle of whiskey during a “Big/Little” initiation night and died from alcohol poisoning. Multiple fraternity members were convicted of hazing-related criminal charges. In 2023, his family reached a $10 million settlement ($7 million from the national Pi Kappa Alpha organization and approximately $3 million from Bowling Green State University). This case demonstrated that not only fraternities but also universities can face significant financial and reputational consequences when hazing leads to death.

Physical & Ritualized Hazing Pattern

Beyond alcohol, ritualized physical abuse and extreme physical endurance tests are common, emphasizing the dangers of traditional “initiation” through pain.

• Chun “Michael” Deng – Baruch College, Pi Delta Psi (2013): Michael Deng, a Chinese-American pledge, died from traumatic brain injuries after a brutal blindfolded “glass ceiling” ritual at an off-campus fraternity retreat in Pennsylvania’s Pocono Mountains. Members repeatedly tackled him while he was weighted down with a backpack. Help was deliberately delayed for hours. In a landmark case, multiple members were convicted, and the national fraternity was even criminally convicted of aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter, subsequently being banned from Pennsylvania for 10 years. This case clearly established that off-campus “retreats” are not a legal shield and can be just as dangerous as, or even more dangerous than, on-campus events, leading to severe sanctions against national organizations.

Athletic Program Hazing & Abuse

Hazing is not exclusive to Greek life; it is deeply embedded in some athletic programs, where “team building” or “player-led culture” can morph into egregious abuse.

• Northwestern University Football (2023–2025): This scandal revealed wide-ranging allegations of sexualized and racist hazing within the prestigious Northwestern football program over multiple years. Several former players filed lawsuits against the university and coaching staff. Head coach Pat Fitzgerald was ultimately fired and later confidentially settled a wrongful-termination lawsuit. This high-profile case highlighted that hazing extends far beyond Greek life into major collegiate athletic programs, raising profound questions about institutional oversight and the responsibility of university leadership.

What These Cases Mean for Texas Families

These national anchor cases, along with countless others, reveal common threads that families in Sherman County should recognize: forced drinking, humiliation, physical violence, deliberate delays in seeking medical attention, and elaborate cover-up attempts. While these cases occurred in different states and at different types of institutions, they consistently demonstrate that:

• Severe injuries and wrongful deaths often lead to significant civil liability for individuals, local chapters, national organizations, and universities.
• Public outrage and legal action are frequently the forces that drive legislative reforms and institutional changes.
• Multi-million-dollar settlements become powerful drivers for accountability, not just for victims but also as a deterrent for future misconduct.

For families in Sherman County whose children attend or may attend Texas universities, it’s clear that the landscape of hazing is shaped by these hard-won lessons. Whether facing hazing at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, or Baylor, these national precedents underscore the severity of the issue and the legal avenues available for demanding justice and preventing future tragedies.

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

For families in Sherman County, understanding the specific environments and organizational cultures at major Texas universities is key to recognizing and addressing hazing risks. While Sherman County is located in the northern panhandle of Texas, its residents often send their children to universities across the state. Whether a student from Sherman County attends the University of Houston in the bustling urban landscape, Texas A&M in the Brazos Valley, UT Austin in the state capital, SMU in Dallas, or Baylor in Waco, they face similar yet distinct hazing dynamics. Even if your child attends a smaller college or university in another part of Texas, the principles of law and liability discussed here remain applicable.

University of Houston (UH)

The University of Houston, a large urban campus with a diverse student body, offers a vibrant mix of academic and social life. While many students commute, a growing residential component means campus life, including an active Greek system with numerous fraternities and sororities, plays a significant role in the student experience.

Campus & Culture Snapshot

UH’s diverse and dynamic environment, coupled with a mix of commuter and residential students, creates a complex social ecosystem. Its Greek life is robust, spanning various councils, including IFC, Panhellenic, NPHC, and Multicultural Greek organizations. Beyond Greek life, numerous cultural, service, and athletic clubs contribute to a lively student organization scene, each carrying its own traditions and potential for hazing.

Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

UH maintains an explicit anti-hazing policy, clearly stating that hazing is prohibited whether on-campus or off-campus. This policy forbids any activity that endangers mental or physical health for the purpose of initiation or affiliation, including forced consumption of alcohol, sleep deprivation, physical mistreatment, or mental distress. UH provides several reporting channels: the Dean of Students office, the Office of Student Conduct, and the UH Police Department (UHPD), along with online reporting forms. While UH transparently posts its policies, the level of detail on specific disciplinary actions for hazing, historically, has been less comprehensive than some other major Texas universities.

Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

Like many large universities, UH has had its share of hazing incidents. A notable case involved Pi Kappa Alpha (Pike) in 2016, where pledges allegedly experienced severe sleep and food deprivation during a multi-day event. One student reportedly suffered a lacerated spleen after being violently slammed onto a surface. The local chapter faced misdemeanor hazing charges and was suspended by the university, highlighting UH’s willingness to take disciplinary action. Subsequent disciplinary references at UH have also pointed to other fraternities engaging in behavior “likely to produce mental or physical discomfort,” including alcohol misuse and policy violations, leading to additional suspensions or probations. These incidents underscore the persistent challenge of hazing, even with university policies in place.

How a UH Hazing Case Might Proceed

For a student from Sherman County involved in a hazing incident at UH, legal proceedings could involve multiple agencies. If the hazing occurred on campus, the UHPD would likely have primary jurisdiction. Off-campus incidents might involve the Houston Police Department (HPD). Civil lawsuits would typically be filed in courts with jurisdiction over Houston and Harris County, given the firm’s Houston presence. Potential defendants could include the individual students involved, the local chapter, the national fraternity or sorority, and potentially the university itself or the property owners where the hazing occurred. Our Houston-based legal team is uniquely positioned to handle these complex cases within the local court system.

What UH Students & Parents Should Do

For families from Sherman County with children at UH, vigilance is key.

• Familiarize yourselves with UH’s hazing policies and primary reporting channels: the Dean of Students (deanofstudents.uh.edu) and UHPD.
• Document any suspicious behavior or physical signs your child exhibits, utilizing the guidance from Section 8.
• Be aware that Houston-based hazing cases can be complex given the metropolitan environment and overlapping jurisdictions; retain an attorney with local knowledge.
• If you have information about prior complaints or past incidents at UH, share it with your legal counsel to help build a comprehensive case.

Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University, deeply rooted in tradition and known for its strong sense of community, presents a unique context for hazing discussions. The university’s culture, particularly the prominent Corps of Cadets, creates environments where adherence to tradition and hierarchy can sometimes blur the lines into hazing.

Campus & Culture Snapshot

A&M’s identity is heavily influenced by the Corps of Cadets, a collegiate military training program renowned for its strict traditions and discipline. This strong tradition, alongside a vibrant Greek system and numerous student organizations, fosters a culture where “earning your Aggie Ring” or “earning your spot” can sometimes involve rituals that become dangerous. This environment can make it particularly challenging for students from Sherman County or elsewhere to distinguish between legitimate tradition and abusive hazing.

Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

Texas A&M unequivocally prohibits hazing, articulating its stance through the Student Conduct Office and specific policies within the Corps of Cadets. These policies cover activities on and off campus and include a broad range of forbidden behaviors from physical abuse to forced consumption. Reporting channels include the Student Conduct Office, the Texas A&M University Police Department (UPD), and specific mechanisms within the Corps for reporting misconduct. While A&M publicly states its commitment to a hazing-free environment, the balance between tradition and safety remains a point of consistent discussion and occasional controversy.

Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

Texas A&M has experienced significant hazing incidents impacting both its Greek life and the Corps. A notable case involved Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) around 2021, where pledges alleged being subjected to appalling rituals including having industrial-strength cleaner, raw eggs, and spit poured on them, resulting in severe chemical burns that required skin graft surgeries. The pledges filed a $1 million lawsuit against the fraternity, and the chapter was suspended by the university. More recently, in 2023, a lawsuit was filed by a cadet alleging degrading hazing within the Corps of Cadets, forcing him into simulated sexual acts and being bound in a “roasted pig” pose with an apple in his mouth. He sought over $1 million, prompting the university to state it addressed the matter through its internal processes. These incidents highlight the range of groups where hazing can occur at A&M and the university’s ongoing challenge to manage its deeply ingrained traditions.

How a Texas A&M Hazing Case Might Proceed

For a Sherman County family navigating a hazing case at Texas A&M, proceedings would engage the Texas A&M UPD for on-campus incidents or Bryan/College Station law enforcement for off-campus events. Civil suits would be filed in courts with jurisdiction over College Station and Brazos County. Given the unique aspects of the Corps of Cadets, civil cases might not only target students and Greek organizations but also delve into the university’s oversight of these military-style traditions. Our firm’s experience with complex litigation, including cases involving institutional oversight, positions us to effectively pursue claims in this environment.

What Texas A&M Students & Parents Should Do

Families from Sherman County with students at Texas A&M should be keenly aware of the balance between tradition and hazing.

• Understand the specific rules and expectations of organizations and groups, especially those within the Corps.
• Be critical of any “tradition” that involves secrecy, degradation, or risk to health.
• Utilize A&M’s reporting systems but understand the potential for internal bias given the strength of traditions.
• Recognize that cases involving the Corps of Cadets require legal counsel familiar with military-style organizational structures and their unique challenges.

University of Texas at Austin (UT)

The University of Texas at Austin, a flagship institution in the heart of the state capital, boasts a sprawling campus with a vibrant social and academic ecosystem. Its extensive Greek life and myriad student organizations contribute to a dynamic environment where traditions and peer pressure can sometimes lead to hazing.

Campus & Culture Snapshot

UT Austin’s culture is characterized by its large student body, high academic standards, and a prominent Greek system, along with numerous spirit and cultural organizations. For a student from Sherman County, arriving at UT means joining a diverse community with deeply ingrained traditions. This competitive and often exclusive environment can inadvertently foster hazing under the guise of “earning your burnt orange” or building strong bonds within select groups.

Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

UT Austin has a well-defined anti-hazing policy that strictly prohibits any physical or mental abuse during initiation or affiliation. What sets UT apart is its commitment to transparency: the university maintains a public online database of hazing violations, detailing the organization, date, specific conduct, and sanctions imposed. Reporting channels are varied and include the Dean of Students office, the Office of Student Conduct, the UT Police Department (UTPD), and anonymous reporting via EthicsPoint. This transparency allows families in Sherman County to research the disciplinary history of organizations their children might join.

Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

UT Austin’s public hazing database provides a clear record of recurring issues. For example, in 2023, Pi Kappa Alpha (Pike) was sanctioned after new members were directed to consume milk and perform strenuous calisthenics, a clear act of hazing. This resulted in the chapter being placed on probation and mandated to implement new hazing-prevention education. Other student groups, including tradition-rich spirit organizations like the Texas Wranglers, have also faced sanctions for forced workouts, alcohol-related hazing, or punishment-based practices. These consistent entries on UT’s public log, despite disciplinary actions, underscore the ongoing challenge the university faces in eradicating hazing.

How a UT Austin Hazing Case Might Proceed

If a Sherman County student experiences hazing at UT Austin, investigations could involve the UTPD for incidents on or near campus, or the Austin Police Department (APD) for off-campus events. Civil lawsuits would likely proceed in courts with jurisdiction over Austin and Travis County. The existence of UT’s public hazing log is a significant asset in civil cases, as it can provide critical “pattern evidence” demonstrating the university’s or organization’s prior knowledge of hazing risks and its response history. Our firm’s experience in complex litigation means we are well-equipped to leverage such public records to support a client’s claim.

What UT Austin Students & Parents Should Do

For Sherman County families with students at UT Austin:

• Before joining any organization, thoroughly review UT’s public hazing violations database (hazing.utexas.edu) to understand an organization’s disciplinary history.
• Familiarize yourselves with UT’s extensive anti-hazing resources and reporting options.
• If hazing is suspected, diligently document every detail, knowing that UT’s public record-keeping can be crucial for an informed legal strategy.

Southern Methodist University (SMU)

Southern Methodist University, nestled in Dallas, is a private institution known for its strong academic programs and affluent student body. Its social scene is heavily influenced by a prominent Greek system, creating a vibrant campus culture that, like other universities, grapples with the issue of hazing.

Campus & Culture Snapshot

SMU’s reputation as a private, exclusive university with a well-established Greek presence shapes its social dynamics. Many students from Sherman County and elsewhere are drawn to SMU’s academic rigor and the opportunities its social environment offers. However, the prestige and perceived exclusivity of certain fraternities and sororities can intensify peer pressure, making new members vulnerable to hazing rituals dressed up as “traditions” or “bonding experiences.”

Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

SMU maintains explicit policies prohibiting hazing, encompassing acts that endanger physical or mental health. As a private institution, SMU manages its internal disciplinary processes and, historically, has not publicly disclosed hazing violations with the same granularity as larger public universities like UT Austin. However, SMU does offer clear reporting channels through its Office of the Dean of Students, the SMU Police Department, and anonymous tip lines, emphasizing student responsibility for reporting. Programs like “Real Response” are often implemented to encourage reporting within Greek life.

Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

SMU has disciplined numerous organizations for hazing over the years. A prominent incident involved Kappa Alpha Order in 2017, where new members reportedly endured paddling, forced alcohol consumption, and sleep deprivation. The chapter was swiftly suspended by the university, with significant restrictions on its activities and recruiting extending for several years. While specific details of incidents, disciplinary actions, and settlements involving private universities like SMU are often less transparent than their public counterparts, these cases confirm that hazing is a recurring issue across various organizations on campus.

How an SMU Hazing Case Might Proceed

For a Sherman County family pursuing a hazing case at SMU, investigations might involve the SMU Police Department for campus incidents or the Dallas Police Department for off-campus events. Civil lawsuits would typically be filed in courts with jurisdiction over Dallas and Dallas County. Because SMU is a private institution, it has fewer state-level sovereign immunity protections than public universities. This can sometimes make it more straightforward to pursue claims directly against the university. Our experience in navigating the nuances of both public and private university legal landscapes positions us to effectively advocate for victims at SMU.

What SMU Students & Parents Should Do

For Sherman County families with students attending SMU:

• Be aware that while SMU condemns hazing, its private nature means disciplinary actions may not be as publicly transparent as at state universities.
• Encourage your child to utilize SMU’s anonymous reporting tools if they encounter hazing.
• If hazing occurs, seek legal counsel familiar with litigation against private institutions, as the process for obtaining internal records and compelling discovery can differ from public university cases.

Baylor University

Baylor University, a private Baptist university in Waco, features a distinct faith-based culture that influences its student life and organizational dynamics. While committed to Christian principles and student welfare, Baylor has faced unique challenges related to institutional oversight, particularly highlighted by past scandals, which intersect with its approach to student safety, including hazing.

Campus & Culture Snapshot

Baylor’s strong religious identity permeates its campus culture, often emphasizing community and ethical conduct. However, like many universities, it hosts active fraternities, sororities, and numerous other student organizations, including athletic teams that have their own distinct initiation practices. The desire for belonging and adherence to “tradition” within these groups can sometimes override explicit university values, creating an environment where hazing can take root, even for students from Sherman County hoping for a safe, value-driven college experience.

Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

Baylor University maintains a “zero tolerance” policy against hazing, articulated clearly in its student code of conduct. The policy aligns with Texas state law, defining hazing broadly and prohibiting any activity that endangers mental or physical health for initiation purposes. Baylor emphasizes reporting through its Student Conduct Administration, the Baylor University Police Department (BUPD), and EthicsPoint for anonymous reporting. The university aims to uphold a safe environment consistent with its Christian mission, but as with all institutions, effective enforcement is an ongoing challenge.

Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

Baylor has faced scrutiny over its institutional oversight in the past, particularly during the widely publicized football and Title IX sexual assault scandal. This history has sharpened focus on all aspects of student safety, including hazing. In 2020, for example, Baylor’s baseball team faced a significant 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 and can manifest within high-profile athletic programs, challenging the university’s commitment to its “zero tolerance” stance. Such events are a reminder that university policies, however strict, must be matched by consistent enforcement.

How a Baylor Hazing Case Might Proceed

For a Sherman County family involved in a hazing incident at Baylor, investigations could involve the BUPD for on-campus occurrences or the Waco Police Department for events off-campus. Civil lawsuits would typically be filed in courts with jurisdiction over Waco and McLennan County. As a private institution, Baylor, like SMU, does not benefit from the same sovereign immunity protections as public universities in Texas. This can make the process of pursuing claims against the university itself more direct. Our firm has ample experience in navigating the legal complexities associated with both public and private institutions, understanding how their unique contexts influence litigation strategy.

What Baylor Students & Parents Should Do

Families from Sherman County with students at Baylor should:

• Become intimately familiar with Baylor’s student code of conduct regarding hazing and its reporting mechanisms.
• Be mindful that “tradition” in athletic teams or other organizations can sometimes mask hazing behaviors that contradict Baylor’s stated values.
• Given Baylor’s history of institutional oversight challenges, diligent documentation of any hazing incidents and immediate legal consultation are crucial. An experienced attorney can help discern whether university actions were truly responsive and whether further accountability is warranted.

Fraternities & Sororities: Campus-Specific + National Histories

When hazing tears a family apart in Sherman County or anywhere else in Texas, understanding the history of the organizations involved can be crucial for seeking justice. Many of the fraternities and sororities at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor are part of vast national organizations. These national bodies often have anti-hazing policies so robust precisely because they have a long, painful history of deaths, catastrophic injuries, and multi-million-dollar lawsuits across the country.

Why National Histories Matter

The national headquarters for fraternities and sororities are not merely symbolic entities. They operate by setting policies, collecting dues, providing resources, and influencing local chapter operations. Because of this oversight, if a Texas chapter repeats a dangerous hazing ritual that has previously led to injury or death at another chapter in a different state, the national organization can be held accountable. This demonstrates foreseeability – the national organization knew, or should have known, that such hazing was dangerous because it had happened before. This concept is vital for supporting negligence or even punitive damages arguments against national entities in civil lawsuits.

When we investigate a hazing case, we meticulously examine the historical patterns of the fraternity or sorority involved. We look for similar incidents, disciplinary actions, and lawsuits nationwide. This documented history helps to prove that hazing was not a “rogue incident” but rather a pattern of behavior that the national organization had prior notice of and potentially failed to adequately address or prevent.

Organization Mapping (Synthesized)

While it’s impossible to list every fraternity and sorority and their complete hazing history here, certain national organizations have unfortunately been implicated in multiple severe hazing incidents across the United States. Knowing these patterns helps contextualize hazing risks at Texas campuses. We focus on some of the major organizations with well-documented national hazing issues that also have a presence at our key Texas universities:

• Pi Kappa Alpha (ΠΚΑ / Pike): This fraternity has a history of high-profile hazing incidents, particularly involving alcohol. The tragic Stone Foltz case at Bowling Green State University (2021), where a pledge died from alcohol poisoning after forced consumption during a “Big/Little” night, resulted in a $10 million settlement and multiple criminal convictions. Another case involved David Bogenberger at Northern Illinois University in 2012, resulting in a $14 million settlement. These cases illustrate a recurring pattern that national Pike should have been aware of, making similar incidents at Texas chapters of Pi Kappa Alpha highly foreseeable. Pi Kappa Alpha often has chapters at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, and Baylor.

• Sigma Alpha Epsilon (ΣΑΕ / SAE): SAE has faced a devastating number of hazing-related deaths and severe injuries nationwide over the years. This pattern led the national organization to famously eliminate its traditional pledge process in 2014, yet incidents persist. Recent lawsuits include a tragic traumatic brain injury suit at the University of Alabama (filed 2023) and allegations of pledges suffering severe chemical burns from industrial-strength cleaner at Texas A&M University (2021). A January 2024 lawsuit against a UT Austin chapter alleged assault by fraternity members. SAE maintains a presence at UH, Texas A&M, and UT Austin.

• Phi Delta Theta (ΦΔΘ): This fraternity was implicated in the death of Maxwell “Max” Gruver at Louisiana State University (2017) due to a “Bible study” drinking game. His death directly led to the Max Gruver Act, a felony hazing law in Louisiana. This incident underscored how dangerous traditions within this fraternity’s chapters could be. Phi Delta Theta has chapters at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor.

• Pi Kappa Phi (ΠΚΦ): Pi Kappa Phi was involved in the death of Andrew Coffey at Florida State University (2017) from acute alcohol poisoning during a “Big Brother Night” event. His death triggered widespread anti-hazing reforms across Florida. Pi Kappa Phi often has chapters at UH, Texas A&M, and UT Austin.

• Beta Theta Pi (ΒΘΠ): While Beta Theta Pi has taken steps to address hazing, its past includes the tragic death of Timothy Piazza at Penn State University (2017). His death, caused by extreme alcohol consumption and delayed medical care, led to Pennsylvania’s tough Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing Law. Beta Theta Pi chapters can be found at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, and SMU.

• Kappa Sigma (ΚΣ): Kappa Sigma chapters have faced allegations including hazing and severe injuries. Notably, the tragic drowning of Chad Meredith at the University of Miami in 2001 led to a $12.6 million jury verdict based on hazing and the “Chad Meredith Law” in Florida. Allegations of hazing resulting in severe injuries (rhabdomyolysis) have been ongoing at Texas A&M (2023), resulting in litigation. Kappa Sigma chapters are active at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, and Baylor.

• Sigma Chi (ΣΧ): Recent developments involving Sigma Chi include alleged physical beatings and forced substance consumption at a College of Charleston chapter (2024), resulting in a settlement of more than $10 million for the family. Such cases are critically important for demonstrating the potential for substantial damages for severe hazing, even if historical records aren’t as prominent. Sigma Chi has chapters at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, and SMU.

This is not an exhaustive list, and hazing is not limited to these organizations. However, these examples illustrate how many national fraternities and sororities have a documented history of severe hazing incidents that should inform their risk management and accountability. The specific rosters of fraternities and sororities at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor can be found on their respective university Greek Life websites, and these rosters can change periodically.

Tie Back to Legal Strategy

For families in Sherman County seeking justice for hazing-related harm, understanding these national patterns is invaluable for legal strategy. When a local chapter in Texas repeats a hazing ritual that has caused injury or death elsewhere, it strengthens arguments that:

• The national organization had prior knowledge and foreseeability of the dangers of such practices.
• Their anti-hazing policies may not have been genuinely enforced, acting merely as “paper policies” designed to avoid liability rather than prevent harm.
• The national organization may have failed in its duty to adequately supervise, train, or discipline local chapters.

This pattern evidence can significantly impact:

• Settlement leverage: It puts pressure on national organizations and their insurers to settle due to increased liability exposure.
• Insurance coverage disputes: Knowing insurers’ typical “intentional act” exclusions, arguments can be made that the negligence existed in the failure to prevent well-known patterns, rather than just the direct intentional act. Our own Lupe Peña, with her background as an insurance defense attorney, is particularly skilled at navigating these complex insurance coverage disputes.
• Potential for punitive damages: In cases of egregious conduct and a clear history of ignoring warnings, a jury might award punitive damages to punish the defendant and deter similar behavior in the future, depending on the specifics of the case and jurisdiction.

Ultimately, detailed investigation into the national history of an organization involved in a hazing incident provides robust support for a victim’s claim, helping to hold powerful entities accountable and push for genuine change.

Building a Case: Evidence, Damages, Strategy

For Sherman County families facing the aftermath of a hazing incident, the path to justice often involves building a meticulous legal case. This process requires thorough evidence collection, a clear understanding of potential damages, and a strategic approach to litigation against powerful institutions. The Manginello Law Firm leverages its experience in complex litigation to uncover the truth and advocate for victims.

Evidence is Everything

In hazing cases, securing and preserving evidence quickly is paramount. Evidence can disappear rapidly, witnesses’ memories fade, and organizations often act to control the narrative or even destroy incriminating materials.

• Digital Communications: This is often the most critical source of evidence in modern hazing cases.

  • Group Messaging Apps: Conversations on GroupMe, WhatsApp, iMessage, Discord, Snapchat, or even fraternity-specific apps can reveal planning, intent, specific instructions, discussions about hazing (even under code names), and attempts to cover up incidents. It’s crucial to screenshot full conversations with timestamps and participant names, preserving them in native resolution. Our firm advises families on preserving these chats and works with digital forensics experts to recover deleted messages.
  • Social Media: Posts, stories, DMs, or comments on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook can show hazing in progress, injuries, humiliation, or admissions by members. Location tags, hashtags, and captions can provide additional context. Screenshots are vital, especially for ephemeral content.
  • Email and Text Messages: Official chapter communications, emails or texts from officers, or individual member discussions can provide direct evidence of hazing activities and responsibilities.

• Photos & Videos: Any visual evidence of hazing, whether taken by participants or bystanders, is invaluable.

  • Incident Footage: Videos of hazing events, admissions of misconduct, or discussions about the hazing act itself can be incredibly powerful.
  • Injury Documentation: Close-up photos of visible injuries, taken with a ruler or coin for scale, and updated over several days to show progression, are essential for medical claims.
  • Location & Objects: Photos of the hazing location, specific items used (paddles, alcohol bottles, props, damaged clothing), or the immediate aftermath (e.g., someone unconscious, paramedics arriving) all contribute to building a comprehensive picture.

• Internal Organization Documents: These records can shed light on an organization’s knowledge and policies.

  • Pledge Manuals/Rituals: Actual documents outlining initiation scripts, “traditions,” or expectations can reveal the nature of the hazing.
  • Communications: Emails or texts from officers or advisors regarding pledge activities, even if phrased euphemistically, can be critical.
  • National Policies: The national fraternity/sorority’s anti-hazing policies and training materials, alongside records of their enforcement (or lack thereof), are vital.

• University Records: Schools maintain important records that can be obtained through discovery in a lawsuit or, in some cases, public records requests.

  • Conduct Files: Records of prior disciplinary actions against the same organization or individuals can establish a pattern of misconduct and the university’s knowledge.
  • Incident Reports: Reports to campus police, student conduct offices, or Title IX coordinators.
  • Hazing Logs: Public logs, like UT Austin’s database, provide a transparent record of violations.

• Medical and Psychological Records: These documents are crucial for detailing the extent of the victim’s physical and emotional harm.

  • Emergency & Hospital Records: ER reports, ambulance records, hospitalization notes, and lab results (e.g., toxicology, blood alcohol content, kidney function for rhabdomyolysis) provide objective proof of injury.
  • Ongoing Treatment: Records from specialists, physical therapy, and particularly mental health professionals (psychologists, psychiatrists) document long-term physical and psychological trauma (PTSD, depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation), which can form a major component of damages.

• Witness Testimony: Eyewitness accounts and statements from those involved or aware of the hazing are often invaluable. This includes other pledges, current or former members, coaches, RAs, or even bystanders. An attorney can help identify and secure testimony from individuals who might otherwise be reluctant to come forward.

Damages: What Victims and Families Can Recover

In a civil hazing lawsuit, damages are categorized to compensate victims and their families for the full scope of their losses. While every case is unique and specific outcomes depend on various factors, the aim is to recover compensation for both economic and non-economic harm.

• Medical Bills & Future Care: This covers all costs associated with physical injuries.

  • Past Medical Expenses: Emergency room visits, ambulance transport, hospital stays, medications, and initial therapies.
  • Future Medical Expenses: For serious injuries (e.g., traumatic brain injury, organ damage, severe burns), costs can include ongoing therapy (physical, occupational, speech), repeated surgeries, specialized equipment, and, for catastrophic injuries akin to the Danny Santulli case, lifelong professional care plans.

• Lost Earnings / Educational Impact: Hazing can disrupt a student’s academic and career trajectory.

  • Lost Wages: If the hazing or recovery period prevented a student or parent from working.
  • Lost Educational Opportunities: Costs for tuition or fees if semesters are missed, coupled with the value of lost scholarships.
  • Diminished Future Earning Capacity: If injuries (physical or psychological) cause permanent disability or impede a student’s ability to pursue their chosen career, an economist can calculate the estimated lifetime loss of earnings.

• Non-Economic Damages: These compensate for subjective, non-financial suffering that is nonetheless profound.

  • Physical Pain and Suffering: Compensation for the actual physical pain endured from injuries and any chronic pain.
  • Emotional Distress and Psychological Harm: Includes compensation for diagnosed conditions like PTSD, depression, severe anxiety, and panic attacks, as well as for humiliation, shame, loss of dignity, fear, and nightmares. For victims and their families, the emotional toll is often immense.
  • Loss of Enjoyment of Life: Compensation for the inability to participate in activities once enjoyed, withdrawal from social life, damaged relationships, and the forfeiture of the expected college experience.

• Wrongful Death Damages (for Families): In the most tragic cases, when hazing results in a student’s death, surviving family members (parents, children, spouses, and in some situations, siblings) can recover compensation.

  • Funeral and Burial Costs: Direct expenses related to the death.
  • Loss of Financial Support: If the deceased would have contributed financially to the family.
  • Loss of Companionship, Love, and Society: Compensation for the profound emotional loss experienced by family members.
  • Grief and Emotional Suffering: Damages tailored to the immense emotional trauma endured by the deceased’s loved ones.

• Punitive Damages: In specific situations, if the defendants’ conduct was particularly egregious, malicious, or demonstrated a reckless disregard for human life (e.g., ignoring repeated warnings, actively covering up an incident), a jury might award punitive damages. These are not to compensate the victim but to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar conduct in the future. In Texas, punitive damages are available but often subject to statutory caps in most personal injury cases.

Role of Different Defendants and Insurance Coverage

Hazing lawsuits are complex because they often involve multiple defendants, each with their own legal counsel and, crucially, insurance policies.

• Insurance Policies: National fraternities, local chapters, universities, and sometimes individual members, typically carry liability insurance. These policies are designed to cover the costs of legal defense and potential settlements or judgments.
• Insurance Coverage Disputes: A common tactic by insurers is to argue that hazing, especially if it involved intentional acts or criminal behavior, is excluded from coverage. Insurers might claim that their policies don’t cover “intentional harm” or “criminal acts,” attempting to avoid their duty to defend or pay out claims.
• Experienced Hazing Lawyers: Our firm, with Lupe Peña’s specialized background as a former insurance defense attorney, understands the intricate “playbook” used by insurance companies. We know how to identify all potential insurance coverage sources, vigorously challenge wrongful denials of coverage, and navigate complex policy exclusions. Our goal is to ensure that all available insurance resources are brought to bear, maximizing the potential recovery for the victim. We force insurers to recognize their obligations, either through negotiation or, if necessary, through litigation for bad faith denial of coverage.

Building a strong hazing case for Sherman County families requires not only deep empathy for the victim but also aggressive investigation, sophisticated legal strategy, and an unwavering commitment to holding every responsible party accountable.

Practical Guides & FAQs

When hazing impacts a family in Sherman County, knowing what to do immediately and understanding their rights can make a profound difference. This section offers practical advice for parents, students, and even former members and witnesses, along with answers to frequently asked questions.

For Parents: Recognizing & Responding to Hazing

For parents, detecting hazing can be challenging because secrecy is often a core component. Trust your instincts if something feels off.

• Warning Signs of Hazing:

  • Unexplained Injuries: Bruises, burns, cuts, or physical ailments that don’t have a credible explanation. Sometimes, these are attributed to “accidents” that don’t quite add up.
  • Extreme Fatigue/Sleep Deprivation: Your child is consistently exhausted, staying up for long “mandatory” events, or getting calls/texts at all hours.
  • Drastic Mood Changes: Sudden anxiety, depression, increased irritability, withdrawal from family or old friends. They might be defensive when asked about their organization.
  • Secrecy: Answering questions with “I can’t talk about it,” “it’s a secret,” or “everyone had to do it.” They might avoid discussing their activities.
  • Constant Phone Use & Anxiety: Obsessively checking their phone for group chats, becoming anxious at every ping, or having their phone always on or near them.
  • Academic Decline: A sudden drop in grades, missed classes, or inability to focus due to lack of sleep or stress.
  • Changes in Appearance/Hygiene: Looking unkempt, losing or gaining significant weight, or having little time for personal care.

• How to Talk to Your Child: Approach the conversation with empathy, not judgment. Ask open-ended questions like, “How are things going with [organization]? Are you enjoying it?” or “Is there anything that makes you uncomfortable or that you wish you didn’t have to do?” Emphasize their safety and well-being over loyalty to any group, and assure them you will support them no matter what.

• If Your Child is Hurt or Admits to Hazing:

  • Immediate Medical Care: Prioritize their health. Get them to a doctor, urgent care, or emergency room. Tell medical professionals it was hazing, so it’s documented.
  • Document Everything: Start a detailed log: dates, times, what your child told you (contemporaneous notes are powerful). Screenshot any texts, group chats, or photos your child shows you. Photograph any injuries from multiple angles.
  • Secure Evidence: Save any clothing worn during the incident, receipts for forced purchases, or other physical items.
  • Do NOT: Confront the organization directly, sign any release forms from the university or insurance company without legal advice, or post details on social media.

• Dealing with the University: Every communication with university administrators (Dean of Students, student conduct, campus police) should be documented. Ask specific questions about their knowledge of prior incidents involving the organization and their past responses.

• When to Talk to a Lawyer: If your child has suffered significant physical or psychological harm, or if you feel the university or organization is minimizing the incident, contact an experienced hazing attorney immediately. Our firm can help navigate university processes, preserve evidence, and protect your child’s rights.

For Students / Pledges: Self-Assessment & Safety Planning

For students in Sherman County attending a Texas university, recognizing hazing and understanding your rights is crucial for your safety and well-being.

• Is This Hazing or Just Tradition? Ask yourself: Am I being forced or pressured to do something I don’t want to do? Would I do this if I had a real choice, without fear of exclusion or punishment? Is this activity dangerous, degrading, or illegal? Would the university or my parents approve if they knew exactly what was happening? If older members are making new members do things they don’t have to, or if you’re told to keep secrets, it is very likely hazing. The Texas Education Code defines hazing quite broadly, making activities that endanger your mental or physical health for initiation purposes illegal, regardless of “tradition.”

• Why “Consent” Isn’t the End of the Story: Texas Education Code § 37.155 explicitly states that consent is not a defense to hazing. The law recognizes that true consent is impossible when there’s an inherent power imbalance, intense peer pressure, economic or social threats, and the intense desire to belong. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s your fault because you “agreed” to it.

• Exiting and Reporting Safely: You have the legal right to leave any organization or situation at any time. If you feel unsafe in an immediate situation, call 911. If you want to de-pledge, it’s often best to inform someone outside the organization first (a trusted friend, parent, or university official). You can send an email or text to the chapter president to confirm your resignation and avoid “one last meeting” where you might be pressured.

• Good-Faith Reporting and Amnesty: Texas law and many university policies, including those at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor, provide amnesty for students who call 911 or seek medical help in an emergency, even if underage drinking or hazing was involved. This “Good Samaritan” protection removes the fear of getting in trouble for seeking help, prioritizing saving lives.

For Former Members / Witnesses: A Path to Accountability

If you were involved in hazing but are no longer part of the organization, or if you witnessed hazing, you might carry guilt or fear. However, your testimony and evidence can be vital in preventing future harm and holding those responsible accountable.

• Your Role in Accountability: Your bravery in coming forward can save lives and bring justice to victims. Your unique perspective can explain the pressures, the code of silence, and the inner workings that outsiders cannot see.
• Legal Protection: Texas law provides some immunity for people who report hazing in good faith. An attorney can help you navigate potential criminal exposure, explain your rights, and guide you through the process of providing information or testimony safely. Speaking with a lawyer does not mean you will be accused; it means you are seeking to protect yourself while contributing to justice.

Critical Mistakes That Can Destroy Your Case

For families in Sherman County, avoiding these common pitfalls is vital when pursuing a hazing lawsuit:

1. Letting Your Child Delete Messages or “Clean Up” Evidence: Parents often fear their child will get into more trouble if incriminating evidence is found. However, deleting evidence looks like a cover-up, can be considered obstruction, and makes a case incredibly difficult to prove. Always preserve everything immediately, even if it’s embarrassing.
2. Confronting the Fraternity/Sorority Directly: While tempting to demand answers, direct confrontation will cause the organization to immediately hire lawyers, destroy evidence, coach witnesses, and prepare their defenses. Document everything then call a lawyer before any confrontation.
3. Signing University “Release” or “Resolution” Forms: Universities may pressure families to sign waivers or agree to internal “resolutions.” Doing so without consulting an attorney can waive your right to sue, and any settlement offered is often far below the true value of the case. Never sign anything without your attorney reviewing it first.
4. Posting Details on Social Media Before Talking to a Lawyer: Emotional and understandable as it is, public social media posts can be used by defense attorneys to attack credibility, create inconsistencies, or even waive certain legal privileges. Document privately and let your lawyer control the public narrative.
5. Letting Your Child Go Back to “One Last Meeting”: If an organization suggests meeting to “talk things over” or before you “do anything drastic,” understand their motive. They want to pressure, intimidate, or extract statements that can later harm your case. Once you’re considering legal action, all communication should go through your lawyer.
6. Waiting “to See How the University Handles It”: Universities will often promise to “handle this internally.” However, precious evidence disappears, witnesses graduate, and the statute of limitations continues to run. University processes may result in mild internal discipline but rarely lead to real accountability or comprehensive compensation. Preserve evidence NOW, consult a lawyer immediately, and understand that university process is not a substitute for legal action.
7. Talking to Insurance Adjusters Without a Lawyer: Insurance adjusters are trained to minimize payouts. They may ask for recorded statements or offer quick, lowball settlements. Politly decline and state, “My attorney will contact you.”

Short FAQ

• “Can I sue a university for hazing in Texas?”
  Yes, under specific circumstances. Public universities in Texas (like UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin) often assert sovereign immunity, but exceptions exist for gross negligence, certain federal violations (like Title IX), or when individual employees are sued in their personal capacity. Private universities (like SMU, Baylor) generally have fewer immunity protections. Every case is highly fact-specific; contact Attorney911 at 1-888-ATTY-911 for a case-specific analysis.

• “Is hazing a felony in Texas?”
  It can be. Hazing is a Class B misdemeanor by default under Texas law. However, it escalates to a state jail felony if the hazing causes serious bodily injury or death. Individuals, including officers of organizations, can also face misdemeanor charges for failing to report hazing.

• “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 acknowledges that “agreement” under duress, peer pressure, or fear of exclusion is not true voluntary consent.

• “How long do we have to file a hazing lawsuit?”
  Generally, there is a 2-year statute of limitations in Texas from the date of injury or death. However, specialized rules like the “discovery rule” may extend this period if the harm or its cause wasn’t immediately known. In cases involving cover-ups or fraud, the statute might be tolled (paused). Time is always critical—evidence disappears, records are deleted, and witnesses’ memories fade. It is crucial to call 1-888-ATTY-911 immediately.

• “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 sororities can still be held liable based on their sponsorship, control over the organization, knowledge of dangerous activities, and foreseeability of harm. Many major hazing cases resulting in multi-million-dollar judgments have occurred off-campus.

• “Will this be confidential, or will my child’s name be in the news?”
  Most hazing lawsuits, particularly those against powerful institutions, are resolved through confidential settlements before trial. While public litigation makes some information public, we prioritize your family’s privacy and work to ensure that settlements include confidentiality provisions when possible.

If you have specific questions about your situation, contact us today for an in-depth conversation. The law is nuanced, and a personalized legal opinion is essential.

About The Manginello Law Firm + Call to Action

When your family in Sherman County is grappling with the devastating impact of hazing, you need more than just a general personal injury lawyer. You need attorneys who intimately understand how powerful institutions—universities, national fraternities, and their vast insurance carriers—fight back, and how to win anyway. The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC, operating as Attorney911, the Legal Emergency Lawyers™, brings a rare depth of expertise to these highly complex and emotionally charged cases.

From our offices in Houston, Austin, and Beaumont, we serve families throughout Texas, including Sherman County and its surrounding communities. We understand that hazing at Texas universities like UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor can shatter a student’s future and leave families reeling. Our firm’s unique qualifications are especially suited to these challenges:

• Insurance Insider Advantage: Our Associate Attorney, Lupe Peña, leverages her invaluable experience as a former insurance defense attorney at a national firm. She knows the insurance industry’s playbook inside and out – how they value hazing claims, their delay tactics, their arguments for coverage exclusions, and their settlement strategies. This insider knowledge is a critical asset, giving our clients a significant edge in negotiations with powerful insurance carriers for fraternities, sororities, and universities. Lupe Peña’s complete credentials can be reviewed at https://attorney911.com/attorneys/lupe-pena/.

• Complex Litigation Against Massive Institutions: Our Managing Partner, Ralph Manginello, possesses extensive experience in complex federal litigation, including his involvement in the landmark BP Texas City explosion litigation. This background means we are not intimidated by taking on deep-pocketed defendants or their formidable legal teams. Ralph’s ability to litigate against billion-dollar corporations translates directly to our aggressive approach against national fraternities, universities, and their defense counsels. Ralph Manginello’s full profile is available at https://attorney911.com/attorneys/ralph-manginello/.

• Multi-Million Dollar Wrongful Death & Catastrophic Injury Experience: We have a proven track record of securing substantial settlements and verdicts in serious injury and wrongful death cases. Our firm understands how to work with economists and medical experts to fully value cases involving tragic loss of life, traumatic brain injuries, and permanent disabilities, ensuring comprehensive compensation that accounts for lifelong care and lost earning potential. We do not settle cheap; we build cases that force accountability and justice.

• Criminal and Civil Hazing Expertise: Ralph’s membership in the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association (HCCLA) provides a crucial understanding of how criminal hazing charges interact with civil litigation. This dual expertise allows us to provide comprehensive advice, particularly for witnesses or former members who might face dual exposure, navigating both criminal and civil tracks effectively. For more information on our criminal defense capabilities, visit https://attorney911.com/law-practice-areas/criminal-defense-lawyers/.

• Investigative Depth: We commit to an exhaustive investigation, utilizing a network of top-tier experts in digital forensics, medicine, economics, and psychology. We meticulously uncover hidden evidence, including deleted group chats, internal chapter records, and university communications obtained through discovery and public records requests. Our approach ensures no stone is left unturned in our pursuit of justice. Attorney911’s video on using your phone to document evidence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbpzrmogTs) explains best practices for preserving screenshots and photos.

We understand that hazing cases are different. They involve powerful institutional defendants, emotionally traumatized victims, complex insurance coverage fights, and the delicate balance of victim privacy against public accountability. We also understand the intricate cultures of Greek life, the Corps of Cadets, and athletic programs – how traditions are formed, how secrecy is enforced, and how coercion works in these environments. We investigate and advocate with the belief that every child’s safety is paramount, and every family deserves answers.

Take the First Step: Contact Attorney911 Today

If your child in Sherman County, or anywhere across Texas, has been harmed by hazing at a university, you don’t have to face this alone. The Manginello Law Firm is here to listen, to empower you, and to fight for you. We provide confidential, no-obligation consultations where we will:

• Listen without judgment to your story and the details of what happened.
• Review any evidence you have collected, from photos and texts to medical records.
• Explain all your legal options, including criminal reporting, civil lawsuits, or other avenues.
• Discuss realistic timelines and what you can expect during the legal process.
• Answer all your questions, including how our contingency fee basis works – we don’t get paid unless we win your case. You can learn more about how contingency fees work in our video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upcI_j6F7Nc.
• Provide you with the information you need to make an informed decision, without any pressure to hire us on the spot.

We prioritize your family’s well-being and the pursuit of true accountability. Whether you’re in Sherman County or anywhere in Texas, if hazing has impacted your family, reach out for experienced legal counsel. Our team can help you understand your rights under Texas law and navigate your best path forward.

Call us today for a confidential consultation:

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

Hablamos Español. For consultations in Spanish, please contact Lupe Peña directly at lupe@atty911.com. Servicios legales en español disponibles.

Reading this article does not create an attorney–client relationship. Every case is unique, and we cannot guarantee specific outcomes. An experienced attorney can review your specific facts, explain your rights under Texas law, and help you understand your options.

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