Hazing on Texas Campuses: A Comprehensive Guide for City of Grapevine Families

A parent in City of Grapevine receives a frantic late-night call. Their student, a bright freshman away at a proud Texas university, sounds disoriented, whispering about an “initiation ritual” at an off-campus fraternity house. There were pledges, excessive drinking, cruel chants, and now a friend has collapsed, unresponsive. Fear grips the parent’s heart—this isn’t the college experience they envisioned. They’re torn between rushing to their child’s side and the terrifying thought of legal repercussions or permanent scars on their child’s future.

This harrowing scenario, or variations of it, plays out far too often in Texas. It’s a parent’s worst nightmare, a student’s terrifying secret, and an institutional failure that can lead to devastating consequences. The pressure to belong, coupled with misguided traditions, can create environments where young lives are tragically altered or even lost.

This comprehensive guide is for families in City of Grapevine and across Texas who are grappling with the reality or the fear of hazing. We understand that whether your child attends a university close to home, perhaps in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex like SMU, or further away at institutions like the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M, Baylor, or the University of Houston, the risks of hazing are real. We aim to equip you with critical knowledge about:

• What modern hazing looks like, far beyond the old stereotypes.
• The specific legal framework in Texas, both criminal and civil, that governs hazing.
• How significant national hazing cases have shaped legal precedents and what those mean for Texas families.
• The specific challenges and hazing histories at prominent Texas universities: UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor.
• The liability and patterns associated with various national fraternities and sororities.
• How a civil hazing case is built, from evidence collection to pursuing damages.
• Practical, actionable steps that parents, students, and witnesses in City of Grapevine and surrounding communities can take to protect themselves and seek accountability.

This article provides general information and is not specific legal advice. The Manginello Law Firm is a Houston-based firm serving families throughout Texas, including those in City of Grapevine, Grapevine, Euless, Bedford, Colleyville, Southlake, and Keller, who need to understand their rights and legal options concerning hazing.

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:

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

• Contact an experienced hazing attorney within 24–48 hours:

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

Hazing in 2025: What It Really Looks Like

The image of hazing often conjures outdated scenes from movies—a harmless prank, some light-hearted mischief. However, the reality of hazing in 2025 is far more sinister and complex. It’s a dangerous, often criminal, practice that exploits a young person’s desire to belong, turning what should be a formative college experience into a traumatic ordeal. For City of Grapevine families, understanding this modern landscape is crucial to protecting their children.

Clear, modern definitions of hazing often encompass any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, on or off campus, by one person alone or with others, directed against a student, that endangers their mental or physical health or safety. This includes actions for the purpose of pledging, initiation into, affiliation with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any student organization. Critically, a student’s “agreement” to participate does not automatically make it safe or legal, especially when peer pressure, power imbalances, and the implicit threat of social exclusion are involved. The law recognizes that true consent is often impossible in these coercive environments.

Main Categories of Hazing

Hazing tactics have evolved, becoming more covert and psychologically manipulative, alongside traditional physical abuses.

• Alcohol and Substance Hazing: This remains one of the most prevalent and deadly forms of hazing. It involves forced or coerced drinking of alcohol, often to dangerous levels, through “chugging challenges,” “lineups,” or drinking games requiring rapid, excessive consumption. Pledges may be pressured to consume unknown substances or mixtures, leading to alcohol poisoning, blackouts, and even death. Many tragic hazing incidents across the nation, including those impacting families from City of Grapevine, involve this dangerous practice.

• Physical Hazing: Beyond the stereotypical paddling or beatings, physical hazing includes extreme calisthenics, forced “workouts,” or “smokings” far exceeding normal physical conditioning, designed purely for punishment. Sleep deprivation, often across multiple nights, and food or water deprivation are also common. Exposure to extreme cold or heat, or being left in dangerous environments, can also fall under this category. Injuries from physical hazing are often concealed, with students making up excuses for unexplained bruises, burns, or cuts.

• Sexualized and Humiliating Hazing: This deeply degrading form of hazing includes forced nudity or partial nudity, simulated sexual acts (often grotesquely referred to as “elephant walks” or “roasted pig” positions), and wearing humiliating costumes. Such acts can also involve racial, homophobic, or sexist overtones, using slurs or forcing participation in role-play that demeans or exploits. This can inflict profound, lasting psychological damage.

• Psychological Hazing: Often overlooked but incredibly damaging, psychological hazing involves sustained verbal abuse, threats, and social isolation. It can include manipulation, forced confessions, and public shaming, often on social media or in meetings. This creates an environment of constant anxiety, fear, and emotional distress, eroding a student’s self-worth and trust. For students from City of Grapevine transitioning into college life, this abuse of trust can be particularly devastating.

• Digital/Online Hazing: With the ubiquity of smartphones and social media, hazing has moved into the digital realm. This includes dares and challenges in group chats (GroupMe, WhatsApp, Discord), public humiliation via platforms like Instagram, Snapchat, or TikTok, and pressure to create or share compromising images or videos. Pledges can be subjected to 24/7 digital monitoring, forced to respond instantly to messages, or have their location tracked, extending the hazing experience beyond physical gatherings. For City of Grapevine students attending universities, this digital presence means hazing can follow them virtually anywhere.

Where Hazing Actually Happens

To truly protect students, families in City of Grapevine must recognize that hazing is not confined to one type of organization or campus stereotype. While fraternities and sororities (IFC, Panhellenic, NPHC, and multicultural Greek-letter organizations) are frequently associated with hazing incidents, the practice is found in a wide array of student groups:

• Corps of Cadets / ROTC / Military-Style Groups: These organizations, like the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M, often have tradition-heavy environments where lines between rigorous training and hazing can blur, leading to dangerous behaviors.
• Spirit Squads and Tradition Clubs: Groups like the Texas Cowboys at UT Austin, or various university spirit organizations, have faced disciplinary action for hazing that includes physical abuse and forced consumption.
• Athletic Teams: From football and basketball to baseball, cheerleading, and swimming, hazing can occur as a twisted form of team bonding, resulting in severe physical injuries and psychological harm. The Northwestern University scandal highlights how even major athletic programs can harbor systemic hazing.
• Marching Bands and Performance Groups: Even seemingly benign organizations, such as university marching bands and other performance troupes, can engage in hazing rituals as part of their membership process.
• Other Student Organizations: Some service, cultural, and academic organizations can also fall prey to hazing, especially when they develop insular cultures and unchecked leadership.

The common threads that allow these dangerous practices to persist are social status, an often-misguided sense of tradition, and an enforced code of secrecy. Despite widespread anti-hazing policies and a general awareness that hazing is illegal, the desire to belong, fear of exclusion, and willingness to tolerate abuse “to get to the other side” allows these acts to continue behind closed doors. Knowing this reality is the first step toward safeguarding students from City of Grapevine as they embark on their college journeys.

Law & Liability Framework (Texas + Federal)

For families in City of Grapevine dealing with the aftermath of hazing, understanding the legal landscape is crucial. Texas has specific laws to address hazing, providing both criminal penalties and avenues for civil recourse. These state protections are augmented by broader federal policies, creating a multi-layered framework designed to combat campus abuse.

Texas Hazing Law Basics (Education Code)

Under Texas law—which applies to cases in City of Grapevine and across the state—hazing is formally defined in the Texas Education Code, Subchapter F. Specifically, § 37.151 states that 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 a student; and
• Occurs for the purpose of pledging, initiation into, affiliation with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization whose members include students.

This definition is intentionally broad, covering both physical harms (like beatings, forced exercise, or coerced alcohol consumption) and mental harms (such as extreme humiliation, intimidation, or psychological manipulation). The intent of the perpetrator is critical: the act must be intentional, knowing, or reckless. Even if the perpetrator didn’t mean to cause harm, if they acted with reckless disregard for the student’s safety, it can still be considered hazing.

A critical component of Texas hazing law, outlined in § 37.155, is that consent is not a defense. This means that even if a student “agreed” to participate in a hazing activity, that agreement cannot be used to excuse the hazing behavior or shield perpetrators from liability. Legislators recognized that true consent is often impossible to obtain when a student is under intense peer pressure, eager to gain acceptance, or fearful of exclusion.

Criminal penalties for hazing can vary based on the severity of the act:

• Hazing that doesn’t cause serious injury is generally a Class B Misdemeanor.
• If the hazing causes bodily injury requiring medical attention, it can be elevated to a Class A Misdemeanor.
• Crucially, if hazing causes serious bodily injury or death, it becomes a State Jail Felony.

Texas also includes provisions for organizational liability. Under § 37.153, organizations themselves can be subjected to criminal prosecution if they authorized or encouraged hazing, or if an officer or member acting in an official capacity knew about hazing and failed to report it. Penalties for organizations can include fines and loss of university recognition.

To encourage reporting, § 37.154 provides immunity for good-faith reporting. A person who reports hazing in good faith to university or law enforcement authorities is immune from civil or criminal liability stemming from that report. Additionally, many universities and Texas law offer amnesty to students who call for help in a medical emergency, even if underage drinking or hazing was involved, prioritizing saving lives over punishment for related offenses.

Criminal vs. Civil Cases

It’s important for City of Grapevine families to understand the distinction between criminal and civil legal actions in hazing cases. While they both address wrongdoing, their purposes and processes differ significantly.

• Criminal cases: These are initiated by the state (through a prosecutor) against individuals or organizations accused of violating criminal hazing statutes. The primary aim of a criminal case is to punish the offender for their crimes. Common criminal charges related to hazing can include hazing offenses, furnishing alcohol to minors, assault, battery, and in the most tragic scenarios, even manslaughter or negligent homicide. A conviction can result in fines, probation, or incarceration.

• Civil cases: These are brought by the victims (or their surviving family members in cases of wrongful death) against individuals, organizations, or institutions deemed responsible for the harm caused by hazing. The central aim of a civil case is monetary compensation for the victim’s losses and to hold responsible parties accountable. Civil claims can include allegations of negligence, gross negligence, wrongful death, negligent hiring or supervision, premises liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Unlike criminal cases, which require proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” civil cases operate on a lower standard of proof (“preponderance of the evidence”).

It’s crucial to note that a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for a civil lawsuit. A victim can pursue civil damages even if criminal charges are not filed, or if charges result in an acquittal. Both types of cases can proceed simultaneously, each addressing different aspects of the injustice.

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

Beyond state laws, broader federal policies also influence how hazing is addressed, particularly at institutions receiving federal funding.

• The Stop Campus Hazing Act (2024): This landmark federal legislation will significantly increase transparency and accountability regarding hazing incidents. It mandates that colleges and universities receiving federal student aid must:

  • Publicly report hazing incidents and related disciplinary actions in an accessible format.
  • Implement comprehensive hazing prevention education and awareness programs for students and staff.
  • Maintain public non-identifying data on hazing incidents. These requirements will be phased in by approximately 2026, providing crucial data for parents, researchers, and policymakers.

• Title IX: If hazing involves sexual harassment, sexual assault, or creates a hostile environment based on sex, it can trigger an institution’s obligations under Title IX. This federal law prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. When hazing crosses into these areas, institutions are legally bound to investigate, respond, and take corrective action to prevent recurrence.

• Clery Act: The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act requires colleges and universities to disclose information about crime on and around their campuses. While hazing isn’t explicitly listed as a Clery Act crime, many incidents that occur during hazing — such as assaults, alcohol or drug-related offenses, or even aggravated assault — are reportable under Clery. This helps create a broader picture of campus safety and can reveal patterns of misconduct.

Who Can Be Liable in a Civil Hazing Lawsuit

Determining who is legally responsible in a civil hazing lawsuit is complex, but generally encompasses several parties, each with varying degrees of culpability based on their role and knowledge. For City of Grapevine families seeking justice, identifying all potentially liable parties is a key strategic step.

• Individual Students: The students who directly planned, facilitated, carried out the hazing acts, supplied illegal substances, or even those who stood by and enabled the abuse can be held individually liable. This includes “pledge educators,” chapter officers, and even general members. Their personal assets may be at risk.

• Local Chapter / Organization: The collegiate chapter of a fraternity, sorority, or other student organization itself can be sued as a legal entity. Its liability often stems from internal leadership’s awareness or direct involvement, or its failure to adhere to university policies and national rules.

• National Fraternity / Sorority: The national headquarters of a Greek-letter organization often holds significant responsibility. Their liability can arise from negligent supervision of local chapters, failure to enforce anti-hazing policies, ignoring repeated warnings or prior incidents at other chapters, or tacitly allowing dangerous “traditions” to persist. The fact that national organizations have extensive policy manuals often backfires: if they have policies against hazing, but those policies are not enforced, it demonstrates negligence.

• University or Governing Board: The institution where the hazing occurred can also be held liable, especially if there’s evidence of:

  • Negligent supervision: Failure to adequately monitor recognized student organizations.
  • Deliberate indifference: Ignoring known hazing problems or failing to act on repeated warnings.
  • Breach of duty: Failure to protect students as outlined in its own policies or general duties of care.
  • Title IX violations: If the hazing involves gender-based harassment or sexual assault. Public universities (like UH, Texas A&M, UT) may invoke sovereign immunity, but exceptions exist for gross negligence or when suing individual employees in their personal capacity. Private universities (like SMU, Baylor) generally have fewer immunity protections.

• Third Parties: Depending on the specific circumstances, other entities might also share liability, including:

  • Landlords or property owners: If hazing occurs at a privately owned house or event space, and the owner knew or reasonably should have known about the dangerous activities.
  • Bars or alcohol providers: Under “dram shop laws,” an establishment that over-serves alcohol to an intoxicated person who then causes harm, or provides alcohol to minors, can be held liable.
  • Event organizers or security companies: If they failed to provide adequate safety or oversight for an event where hazing occurred.

Each hazing case is unique, and the specific parties held liable will depend heavily on the individual facts, the depth of the investigation, and the evidence uncovered.

National Hazing Case Patterns (Anchor Stories)

To truly understand the landscape of hazing in Texas, including for students attending schools from City of Grapevine, it’s essential to look at national cases. These high-profile tragedies and subsequent legal battles have not only brought hazing into the spotlight but have also set critical legal precedents regarding institutional accountability, foreseeability of harm, and the potential for multi-million-dollar damages. These cases illustrate patterns that can directly inform strategy in Texas litigation.

Alcohol Poisoning & Death Pattern

The most common and devastating pattern in hazing involves excessive, forced alcohol consumption, often leading to acute alcohol poisoning and death.

• Timothy Piazza – Penn State University, Beta Theta Pi (2017): In a case that shocked the nation, 19-year-old Timothy Piazza died after a “bid acceptance” night involving extreme alcohol consumption. Security cameras captured him falling repeatedly, suffering traumatic brain injuries, while fraternity brothers delayed calling for help for hours. The incident led to over a thousand criminal charges against numerous fraternity members, extensive civil litigation, and the passing of Pennsylvania’s Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing Law. This case underscored the fatal combination of extreme intoxication, deliberate medical neglect, and a rampant culture of silence, showing that institutional and individual accountability could be pursued even against powerful universities and national fraternities.

• Andrew Coffey – Florida State University, Pi Kappa Phi (2017): Andrew Coffey, a 20-year-old FSU pledge, died from acute alcohol poisoning during a “Big Brother Night” event. Pledges were given handles of hard liquor and forced to consume them rapidly. Criminal prosecutions followed, mostly resulting in misdemeanor hazing convictions. Florida State temporarily suspended all Greek life, prompting a statewide anti-hazing movement. This tragedy highlighted how formulaic “tradition” drinking nights are a repeating script for disaster, with fatal consequences often disguised as “bonding.”

• Maxwell “Max” Gruver – Louisiana State University, Phi Delta Theta (2017): Max Gruver, 18, died after a brutal “Bible study” drinking game where pledges were forced to drink heavily if they answered questions incorrectly. His blood alcohol content was 0.495%. This incident led directly to the Louisiana Max Gruver Act, which upgraded hazing causing serious injury or death to a felony offense. Multiple members were charged, with one convicted of negligent homicide. The Gruver family’s civil litigation resulted in settlements and a notable verdict. This case is a stark example of how legislative change often follows public outrage and clear proof of hazing, impacting how Texas views similar incidents.

• Stone Foltz – Bowling Green State University, Pi Kappa Alpha (2021): During a “Big/Little” night, 20-year-old Stone Foltz was forced to consume an entire bottle of alcohol, dying from alcohol poisoning. The case led to multiple criminal convictions for hazing-related charges against fraternity members. Critically for families in City of Grapevine and across Texas, the Foltz family reached a $10 million settlement in 2023, with $7 million coming from the Pi Kappa Alpha national fraternity and approximately $3 million from Bowling Green State University. This demonstrates that universities, even public ones, can face significant financial and reputational consequences alongside fraternities, and that national organizations are held responsible for the patterns within their chapters.

Physical & Ritualized Hazing Pattern

Beyond alcohol, physical and ritualized hazing, often involving severe psychological manipulation and physical endurance tests, also leads to catastrophic outcomes.

• Chun “Michael” Deng – Baruch College / Pi Delta Psi (2013): Michael Deng, a 19-year-old pledge, died during a fraternity retreat in the Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania. He was blindfolded, weighted down with a heavy backpack, and repeatedly tackled during a ritual known as “glass ceiling.” His fraternity brothers delayed calling 911. Multiple members were convicted, and in a landmark decision, the national fraternity itself was convicted of aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter and banned from Pennsylvania for 10 years. This case tragically illustrated how off-campus “retreats” (familiar to many Texas families considering Greek life) can be as dangerous or worse than on-campus activities, and that national organizations can face serious criminal sanctions, not just civil liability.

Athletic Program Hazing & Abuse

Hazing is not exclusive to Greek life. Major athletic programs, with their intense competitive cultures, can also foster environments ripe for abuse.

• Northwestern University Football Scandal (2023–2025): This incident exposed widespread sexualized and racist hazing within Northwestern’s prestigious football program, affecting multiple players over several years. The allegations included forced sexual acts, derogatory language, and other forms of physical and psychological abuse. The scandal led to the firing of the longtime head coach, Pat Fitzgerald, and multiple lawsuits against the university and coaching staff. This case served as a critical reminder that hazing extends far beyond Greek life, with powerful athletic programs potentially harboring systemic abuse that goes unchecked. For Texas families, this highlights the need to scrutinize all student organizations, not just fraternities and sororities, for hazing practices.

What These Cases Mean for Texas Families

These anchor stories reveal critical common threads in hazing tragedies: forced drinking, physical abuse, psychological torment, deliberate delays in seeking medical attention, and systematic attempts at cover-ups. They demonstrate that multi-million-dollar settlements and significant legislative reforms often follow only after severe injury or death.

For families in City of Grapevine, Grapevine, Euless, and Bedford, whose children may attend or are considering attending universities like UT Austin, Texas A&M, SMU, Baylor, or UH, these national lessons are directly applicable. The legal precedents established in cases like Piazza, Gruver, and Foltz can be vital in building successful civil lawsuits in Texas, emphasizing foreseeability, institutional accountability, and patterns of negligence. You are not alone in navigating this complex landscape; the lessons learned elsewhere can empower your fight for justice here in Texas.

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

For families across City of Grapevine, ensuring the safety of their children at Texas universities is a top priority. While the institutions mentioned below have anti-hazing policies, their histories show that vigilance is paramount. The Manginello Law Firm understands that each university has its own culture, specific incidents, and ways of handling hazing. This section provides an overview of five major Texas universities, highlighting their specific contexts for hazing.

University of Houston (UH)

The University of Houston, a vibrant urban campus in the heart of the fourth-largest city in the U.S., attracts students from across Texas, including from the City of Grapevine area. Its active Greek life, diverse student organizations, and commuter-residential mix create a complex environment for student safety. Hazing incidents at UH can involve both campus police (UHPD) and the Houston Police Department, depending on the location of the incident, and civil suits would typically proceed in Houston/Harris County courts.

5.1.1 Campus & culture snapshot

UH is a large, dynamic university with a prominent Greek presence encompassing Panhellenic, Interfraternity Council (IFC), National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC), and Multicultural Greek Council (MGC) chapters. Its diverse student body engages in a wide array of clubs, sports, and social organizations, all of which present potential contexts for hazing.

5.1.2 Official hazing policy & reporting channels

UH has clear hazing policies, unequivocally prohibiting any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, on or off campus, that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student. This mirrors state law and explicitly bans coerced consumption of alcohol/substances, sleep deprivation, physical mistreatment, and mental distress in the context of initiation or membership. Students and families can report concerns through the Dean of Students Office, the Office of Student Conduct, or directly to UHPD. UH also provides online reporting forms and maintains a public hazing statement.

5.1.3 Example incident & response

A notable incident involved the Pi Kappa Alpha (Pike) fraternity chapter at UH in 2016. Pledges allegedly endured extreme physical distress and deprivation, including insufficient food, water, and sleep during a multi-day event. One student reportedly suffered a lacerated spleen after being slammed onto a table or similar surface. This incident led to criminal misdemeanor hazing charges against individuals and the chapter faced significant university suspension. Other UH fraternities have faced disciplinary action, probation, or suspension for behaviors classified as hazing, including alcohol misuse and activities likely to produce mental or physical discomfort, demonstrating the university’s willingness to enforce policies, though public access to detailed violation lists can be limited.

5.1.4 How a UH hazing case might proceed

Hazing cases at UH often involve intricate investigations by UHPD, PWD, and the Houston Police Department, depending on the severity and location (on-campus vs. off-campus houses in the Third Ward, for example). Civil suits would typically be filed within the Harris County court system, encompassing the individual perpetrators, the local chapter, the national fraternity/sorority, and potentially the university itself, particularly given the specific allegations and prior knowledge of hazing risks. Families from City of Grapevine whose children attend UH would find their legal counsel navigating these local Houston jurisdictions.

5.1.5 What UH students & parents should do

For students and parents concerned about hazing at UH:

• Understand UH’s specific reporting mechanisms, including the Dean of Students and UHPD.
• Familiarize yourselves with the university’s public hazing statement, which, though not as detailed as some schools, outlines prohibited conduct.
• Immediately document any suspected incidents, especially those involving the Pi Kappa Alpha chapter or other Greek organizations with historical hazing concerns, as these patterns can strengthen a civil case.
• Contacting a lawyer experienced in Houston-based hazing cases, like Attorney911, can help uncover prior disciplinary actions and internal university files, which are crucial for building a strong case for accountability.

Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University, particularly its long-standing Corps of Cadets tradition and robust Greek life, presents a unique backdrop for hazing. The culture, deeply steeped in tradition and military-style discipline, both on and off its College Station campus (accessible to City of Grapevine via I-45 and TX-6), can sometimes blur the line between rigorous initiation and outright abuse. Civil suits stemming from hazing at A&M are often heard in Brazos County courts, and can involve the College Station Police Department as well as the university’s internal investigations.

5.2.1 Campus & culture snapshot

Texas A&M’s identity is heavily influenced by the Corps of Cadets, a deeply traditional military-style program, and a vibrant Greek life. The emphasis on “Aggie Spirit” and historical rituals creates an environment where hazing can be rationalized as character-building or tradition.

5.2.2 Official hazing policy & reporting channels

Texas A&M firmly prohibits hazing, adhering to Texas law. Their policies prohibit any action taken or situation created intentionally or recklessly that causes or could cause mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule for the purpose of initiation or membership. The university offers reporting through the Department of Student Life, the Corps of Cadets leadership, and the Texas A&M Police Department (UPD).

5.2.3 Example incident & response

A significant incident involved the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity chapter at Texas A&M around 2021. Pledges alleged they were covered in a mixture of substances, including an industrial-strength cleaner, raw eggs, and spit, resulting in severe chemical burns that required emergency skin graft surgeries. The pledges subsequently filed a $1 million lawsuit against the fraternity, and the chapter was suspended by the university for two years. Similarly, a Corps of Cadets lawsuit in 2023 made national headlines when a cadet alleged degrading and humiliating hazing, including simulated sexual acts and being bound between beds in a “roasted pig” pose with an apple in his mouth. The cadet sought over $1 million, asserting that the university was aware of such patterns.

5.2.4 How a Texas A&M hazing case might proceed

Given the strong traditions at A&M, hazing cases often involve campus-specific cultural nuances, particularly within the Corps. Investigations typically involve UPD and the College Station Police Department. Civil cases against individuals, Greek organizations, or the university would likely proceed in Brazos County courts. Families from City of Grapevine would find the legal process scrutinizing not only the specific acts but also the institutional oversight of long-standing traditions.

5.2.5 What Texas A&M students & parents should do

For A&M students and families from City of Grapevine:

• Carefully review A&M’s hazing policies and the specific regulations within the Corps of Cadets, if applicable.
• Document any signs of forced physical activity, chemical exposure, or degrading rituals, as seen in the SAE and Corps lawsuits, immediately.
• Recognize that “tradition” is no excuse for hazing under Texas law.
• Contacting an attorney like Attorney911 with experience investigating hazing within highly traditional environments can be crucial, as we understand how to challenge institutional narratives that shield perpetrators.

University of Texas at Austin (UT)

The University of Texas at Austin, a flagship institution, is a popular choice for many City of Grapevine students. Its vibrant campus culture includes a sprawling Greek system and numerous influential student organizations. UT has taken steps towards greater transparency regarding hazing incidents, which provides critical information for affected families, but also highlights the ongoing challenge. UT’s cases often involve UTPD and Austin PD, with civil claims in Travis County courts.

5.3.1 Campus & culture snapshot

UT Austin is home to a diverse and very active Greek life, encompassing a wide range of social, professional, and cultural fraternities and sororities. Beyond Greek life, numerous spirit organizations and student clubs, some with deep-rooted traditions, also operate on campus and have been implicated in hazing.

5.3.2 Official hazing policy & reporting channels

UT Austin maintains a robust anti-hazing policy consistent with state law, strictly prohibiting any activity that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student. UT stands out for its public Hazing Violations page (https://hazing.utexas.edu/), which transparently lists organizations, confirmed hazing incidents, dating back years, and the sanctions imposed. This unparalleled transparency is a valuable resource for City of Grapevine families.

5.3.3 Example incident & response

UT’s public log reveals a persistent pattern across various groups. For instance, the Pi Kappa Alpha (Pike) chapter in 2023 was found to have directed new members to consume milk and perform strenuous calisthenics, classified as hazing. The chapter was placed on probation and required to implement new hazing-prevention education. Other organizations, including the Texas Wranglers and various spirit groups, have faced sanctions for forced workouts, alcohol-related hazing, sleep deprivation, and other punishment-based practices detailed on UT’s public website. This level of transparency, while commendable, also underscores the ongoing battle against hazing at the university.

5.3.4 How a UT hazing case might proceed

Hazing cases at UT Austin are often investigated by UTPD or the Austin Police Department, depending on the incident’s specifics and location. Civil lawsuits would likely be filed in Travis County, with the public record of UT’s past hazing violations proving to be a powerful tool. Prior violations on UT’s public log can strongly support civil suits by demonstrating patterns, institutional knowledge of a group’s behavior, and a failure to enforce policies effectively, which is essential for families from City of Grapevine seeking accountability.

5.3.5 What UT students & parents should do

For UT students and parents from City of Grapevine:

• Regularly consult UT’s public Hazing Violations page (https://hazing.utexas.edu/) to check the history of any organization your child is considering joining.
• Report any suspected hazing directly through UT’s official channels, leveraging the anonymity options where available.
• Document every detail, cross-referencing with UT’s public data if patterns emerge.
• Due to the public nature of UT’s reporting, contacting a hazing attorney like Attorney911 can help strategize on how to best use this information to pursue justice and hold responsible parties accountable.

Southern Methodist University (SMU)

Southern Methodist University, known for its beautiful campus in Dallas and a vibrant Greek life tradition, draws students from City of Grapevine and across the nation. As a private institution, SMU’s internal disciplinary records are not always as publicly accessible as those of state universities, but hazing remains a serious concern. Cases involving SMU entities typically fall under Dallas County jurisdiction.

5.4.1 Campus & culture snapshot

SMU boasts a highly active Greek life that is central to its social scene, with numerous Panhellenic, IFC, NPHC, and multicultural chapters. The emphasis on tradition and a close-knit community can, at times, foster environments where hazing behaviors persist.

5.4.2 Official hazing policy & reporting channels

SMU has strict anti-hazing policies, explicitly prohibiting any activity that causes physical or psychological harm or degrades individuals, whether on or off campus, for the purpose of membership. The university promotes reporting through its Office of Student Conduct and Development, and provides resources like the anonymous Real Response system.

5.4.3 Example incident & response

A significant incident at SMU involved the Kappa Alpha Order fraternity in 2017, which was suspended by the university. New members were reportedly subjected to hazing activities including paddling, forced consumption of alcohol, and sleep deprivation. The chapter faced severe restrictions on recruiting for several years. While SMU doesn’t have a public hazing violations log like UT, such incidents are recorded internally and can be uncovered through legal discovery processes.

5.4.4 How an SMU hazing case might proceed

As a private university, SMU’s internal investigations may be less transparent than those of public institutions. Hazing cases would be handled by the Dallas Police Department for criminal matters, and civil lawsuits would proceed in Dallas County courts. A key aspect of pursuing a case against SMU or its organizations involves compelling discovery to access internal records, disciplinary histories, and communications that are not made public.

5.4.5 What SMU students & parents should do

For SMU students and parents from City of Grapevine:

• Be aware that internal disciplinary actions might not be publicly reported, requiring more proactive investigation.
• Use SMU’s anonymous reporting systems if immediate safety is a concern.
• Document any suspected hazing thoroughly, as the lack of public logs means your personal records become even more vital.
• An attorney like Attorney911 is experienced in navigating the complexities of private university policies and can utilize legal tools to obtain crucial internal documents, helping to build a case for accountability against SMU or its associated organizations.

Baylor University

Baylor University in Waco, while known for its strong religious identity, has also faced its share of scrutiny regarding student safety, particularly in the context of hazing and sexual assault. This history, along with its specific campus culture, shapes how hazing incidents are perceived and addressed. Civil claims for hazing at Baylor are typically heard in McLennan County.

5.5.1 Campus & culture snapshot

Baylor’s Christian mission deeply influences its campus culture. It has a visible Greek life, but also many faith-based and athletic organizations. The university’s past struggles with oversight, particularly concerning its football program and Title IX issues, cast a long shadow, indicating broader challenges in maintaining student safety and accountability.

5.5.2 Official hazing policy & reporting channels

Baylor’s anti-hazing policy explicitly prohibits any conduct that endangers the physical or mental health of a student for the purpose of initiation or affiliation, whether on or off campus. The university states it has a “zero-tolerance” approach. Reporting channels include the Department of Student Activities, the Title IX Office, and the Baylor University Police Department (BUPD).

5.5.3 Example incident & response

In 2020, Baylor’s baseball program faced significant scrutiny when 14 players were suspended following a hazing investigation. The suspensions were staggered over the early season, indicating the scope of the problem. This incident highlighted that, despite Baylor’s stated “zero tolerance,” misconduct can persist, and that hazing is not confined to Greek life but can be embedded even within prominent athletic teams.

5.5.4 How a Baylor hazing case might proceed

Hazing cases at Baylor are investigated by BUPD and the Waco Police Department for criminal aspects, while civil lawsuits would proceed in McLennan County. The university’s past challenges in dealing with alleged misconduct, particularly in its athletic department, may influence how aggressively a hazing case is defended or pursued. It often requires navigating a complex interplay of internal university policies, potential religious exemptions (though not for hazing), and the legal precedents set by previous institutional failures.

5.5.5 What Baylor students & parents should do

For Baylor students and parents from City of Grapevine:

• Be acutely aware of Baylor’s history regarding institutional responses to student misconduct.
• Document not only the hazing acts but also any reports made to BUPD or the Title IX Office, and the university’s subsequent actions or inactions.
• Given Baylor’s reputation and size, seeking legal counsel early is paramount to ensure your child’s rights are protected and that the university is held to appropriate standards of accountability. An experienced hazing attorney understands how to compellingly present a case against institutions with complex histories.

Fraternities & Sororities: Campus-Specific + National Histories

For City of Grapevine families, understanding the specific fraternities and sororities active on Texas campuses, alongside their national organizations’ histories of hazing, is vital. While local chapters operate on campuses like UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, and Baylor, they are nearly always part of larger national structures. These national bodies often have extensive anti-hazing policies — primarily because they have repeatedly faced multi-million-dollar lawsuits and endured devastating tragedies across the country.

Why National Histories Matter

The unfortunate reality is that many fraternities and sororities found at universities frequented by City of Grapevine students, such as Pi Kappa Alpha (Pike), Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE), Phi Delta Theta, and Pi Kappa Phi, have well-documented national hazing issues. Their national headquarters are aware of the common hazing patterns that kill and injure pledges: forced drinking nights (especially “Big/Little” events), violent physical “traditions,” and humiliating rituals. They issue thick anti-hazing manuals and conduct risk management training precisely because these deadly patterns have played out countless times before.

When a chapter in Austin, College Station, Houston, Dallas, or Waco repeats hazing acts that led to a death or severe injury at another chapter of the same national organization in Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania, it provides crucial evidence of foreseeability. The national organization reasonably should have known that such practices were dangerous within their system. This pattern of knowledge can be a cornerstone of negligence claims and can significantly amplify arguments for punitive damages, demonstrating a reckless disregard for student safety despite repeated warnings.

Organization Mapping

Below, we synthesize some prominent fraternities and sororities with known national hazing histories and frequently found at Texas universities.

• Pi Kappa Alpha (Pike): A national fraternity with chapters at many Texas schools, including UH, Texas A&M, and UT Austin. Nationally, Pike has been at the center of multiple fatal hazing incidents. The Stone Foltz case at Bowling Green State University (2021), where a pledge died from alcohol poisoning after being forced to drink an entire bottle of liquor, resulted in a $10 million settlement, with a substantial portion paid by the national fraternity. The David Bogenberger case at Northern Illinois University (2012) also involved an alcohol-related hazing death, leading to a $14 million settlement. These incidents demonstrate a pattern of dangerous alcohol hazing, particularly during “Big/Little” events, that the national organization has repeatedly been put on notice about.

• Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE): SAE is present on many Texas campuses, including UH, Texas A&M, and UT Austin. Nationally, SAE has one of the longest and most tragic histories of hazing-related deaths and severe injuries, particularly involving alcohol. This pattern led to SAE’s highly publicized (and often unenforced) 2014 decision to eliminate the “pledge” process nationwide. Despite this, incidents persist, such as the alarming 2021 case at Texas A&M University where pledges allegedly suffered severe chemical burns from substances poured on them during hazing. More recently, in January 2024 at UT Austin, an exchange student suffered multiple serious injuries after an alleged assault at an SAE party, with the chapter already under suspension for prior violations. These patterns indicate a systemic issue that the national organization has failed to adequately address, despite receiving significant warnings and public scrutiny.

• Phi Delta Theta (ΦΔΘ): With chapters at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor, Phi Delta Theta is another prominent national fraternity. The tragic death of Max Gruver at Louisiana State University (2017) from acute alcohol poisoning during a forced drinking game known as “Bible study” led to criminal convictions and the Max Gruver Act in Louisiana. This incident highlighted the deadly consequences of forced drinking games and led to a $6.1 million verdict against the fraternity and individuals.

• Pi Kappa Phi (ΠΚΦ): Chapters exist at UH and Texas A&M. Nationally, Pi Kappa Phi gained notoriety following the death of Andrew Coffey at Florida State University (2017) due to alcohol poisoning during a “Big Brother Night” event. This case, like others, highlighted a pattern of forced excessive alcohol consumption that the national organization should have been aware of.

• Beta Theta Pi (ΒΘΠ): Found at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor. The Timothy Piazza case at Penn State (2017), which involved a pledge dying from traumatic brain injuries after extreme alcohol hazing and delayed medical care, is one of the largest hazing prosecutions in U.S. history. This case led to significant criminal and civil consequences for the national fraternity, its chapter, and individual members.

• Sigma Chi (ΣΧ): With chapters at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor. A recent case at the College of Charleston (2024) resulted in the family receiving more than $10 million in damages for severe physical and psychological hazing, including beatings and forced substance consumption. This major verdict demonstrates juries are willing to award substantial sums for severe hazing.

• Kappa Kappa Gamma (ΚΚΓ): A major sorority with chapters at Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor. While less frequently associated with fatalities, sororities are not immune to hazing. The historical DePauw University case (1997) involved members branding pledges with cigarettes and confirmed that hazing in sororities can be physical and dangerous.

• Omega Psi Phi (ΩΨΦ): An NPHC fraternity with chapters at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor. Allegations of severe beatings and physical abuse during hazing, such as the 2023 case at the University of Southern Mississippi, resulting in extensive internal injuries and federal lawsuits, highlight that these patterns exist outside of traditionally white fraternities.

Tie Back to Legal Strategy

The documented national histories of these organizations are not mere anecdotes; they are powerful legal tools.

• Foreseeability: An experienced hazing attorney can argue that due to repeated incidents across its chapters, a national organization could foresee the dangers of certain hazing practices. If a national fraternity was aware that its chapters frequently engaged in alcohol-fueled “Big/Little” events that led to injuries or deaths, and yet failed to implement truly effective prevention or enforcement measures, it strengthens a claim of negligence or gross negligence.

• Institutional Knowledge: Litigation can uncover internal communications, risk management reports, and disciplinary files from the national organization itself, showing that they had direct knowledge of ongoing hazing patterns within their system.

• Settlement Leverage & Insurance Coverage: Such historical patterns can be critical in forcing national organizations and their insurers to reasonably resolve claims. Insurers for national fraternities and universities often try to deny coverage by arguing hazing is an “intentional act” or that the national organization had no knowledge. However, if a pattern of prior incidents and a failure to act can be shown, the argument shifts to negligent supervision – which is often covered by insurance. Furthermore, a long history of misconduct across chapters can influence a jury’s willingness to award punitive damages, intended to punish the organization and deter future bad behavior.

Ultimately, these national hazing patterns are central to holding powerful institutions accountable in Texas. They illustrate that hazing is rarely an isolated incident but often part of a known, predictable pattern of behavior that tragically leads to preventable injuries and deaths.

Building a Case: Evidence, Damages, Strategy

For City of Grapevine families navigating the aftermath of a hazing incident, understanding how a legal case is built is crucial. It’s a meticulous process of gathering evidence, proving damages, and strategically pursuing accountability for the harm inflicted.

Evidence

In hazing cases, evidence is everything. It paints the picture of what truly transpired, often hidden behind a veil of secrecy and coercion. The quality and breadth of evidence can make or break a case involving a Texas university or fraternity.

• Digital Communications (The Most Critical Category): More than ever, hazing is planned, executed, and documented online. Group messages from platforms like GroupMe, WhatsApp, Signal, Discord, iMessage, and even fraternity-specific apps are invaluable. These chats can reveal planning, peer pressure, instructions, and even admissions of hazing. Similarly, Direct Messages (DMs) on Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok often contain critical information.

  • What to preserve: Full conversation threads with sender names, timestamps, and sufficient context. It’s crucial to screenshot immediately, especially for disappearing messages (e.g., Snapchat), and to back up everything to cloud storage. Watch Attorney911’s video on using your phone to document evidence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbpzrmogTs) for best practices in preserving screenshots and photos.
  • Digital Forensics: Even deleted messages might be recoverable by experts.

• Photos & Videos: These are often the most compelling forms of evidence. They can include:

  • Content filmed by members during hazing events, subsequently shared in group chats or on social media.
  • Photos or videos of injuries (take multiple angles, with a common object for scale, and over several days to show progression).
  • Security camera footage from houses or venues where hazing occurred.

• Internal Organization Documents: These can reveal the official and unofficial practices of a group. This includes pledge manuals, initiation scripts, “traditions” lists, and internal communications (emails, texts) from officers discussing new member activities. National fraternity/sorority policies and training materials are also vital, as they often outline what should have happened versus what did happen.

• University Records: Through legal discovery processes or public information requests, we can often obtain:

  • Prior conduct files related to the specific chapter or university (probation, suspensions, warnings).
  • Campus police incident reports.
  • Clery Act reports, which may document other crimes that occurred in a hazing context.
  • Internal emails among administrators regarding the student organization.

• Medical and Psychological Records: These document the extent of the victim’s injuries and suffering.

  • Emergency room and hospitalization records, surgery reports, and physical therapy notes.
  • Toxicology reports (especially in alcohol/drug hazing cases).
  • Psychological evaluations that diagnose PTSD, depression, anxiety, or suicidal ideation resulting from the trauma.

• Witness Testimony: Others present during the hazing are critical. This includes other pledges, general members, roommates who observed changes, resident advisors (RAs), coaches, or even bystanders. Former members who quit or were expelled for refusing to haze can also provide invaluable insights.

Damages

Hazing can cause profound and lasting harm. The goal of a civil lawsuit is to seek monetary compensation (damages) for all losses incurred. These are distinct categories for families in City of Grapevine to understand:

• Economic Damages (Quantifiable Financial Losses):

  • Medical Bills & Future Care: This covers everything from immediate emergency room visits and ambulance transport to long-term rehabilitation, specialist consultations, medications, and any necessary assistive devices. For catastrophic injuries like traumatic brain injury, this can include a “life care plan” to estimate lifelong medical and personal care needs.
  • Lost Earnings/Educational Impact: This includes lost wages if the student’s injuries prevent them from working, missed semesters, tuition for repeated courses, lost scholarships, and, most critically, diminished future earning capacity if a permanent injury impacts their career trajectory.

• Non-Economic Damages (Subjective, Legally Compensable Harm):

  • Physical Pain and Suffering: Compensation for the physical agony endured, from injuries received to chronic pain.
  • Emotional Distress & Psychological Harm: This covers the severe mental and emotional toll of hazing, including PTSD, anxiety, depression, humiliation, fear, loss of dignity, and the profound erosion of trust. Psychological counseling and therapy records are crucial here.
  • Loss of Enjoyment of Life: If injuries prevent a student from participating in activities they once loved (sports, hobbies, social life), or if they experience a general reduction in their quality of life.

• Wrongful Death Damages (For Families): In the tragic event of a hazing-related death, surviving family members (parents, spouses, children) can seek damages for:

  • Funeral and burial costs.
  • Loss of financial support the deceased would have provided.
  • Loss of companionship, love, and society.
  • Grief and emotional suffering of the family.

• Punitive Damages: These are not meant to compensate the victim but to punish the defendant for particularly reckless, malicious, or grossly negligent conduct, and to deter similar acts in the future. In Texas, punitive damages may be available if the defendant’s actions were particularly egregious, demonstrating a callous indifference to the safety of others.

We describe these as types of damages, not guaranteed outcomes. The specific value of a case depends on the unique facts and evidence.

Role of Different Defendants and Insurance Coverage

A key strategic element in hazing litigation is identifying all potential defendants and understanding their insurance coverage.

• Institutional Defenses: National fraternities, sororities, and universities are powerful institutions with significant legal resources. They often argue that:

  • Hazing or “intentional acts” are excluded from their insurance policies.
  • They had no knowledge of specific incidents (the “rogue chapter” defense).
  • The hazing occurred off-campus, beyond their control.
  • The victim “consented” to the activity.
  • Public universities may invoke sovereign immunity.

• Attorney911’s Advantage: This is where Attorney911’s unique expertise becomes invaluable. Lupe Peña, with her background as an insurance defense attorney, understands the intricate “playbook” of how these large insurance companies value claims, seek to minimize payouts, and argue exclusions. Ralph Manginello’s extensive complex litigation experience against massive corporations (like in the BP Texas City explosion litigation) means we are not intimidated by powerful institutions or their defense teams. We know how to:

  • Uncover evidence of prior incidents and negligent supervision that demonstrate foreseeability.
  • Challenge insurance coverage denials by showing negligence rather than mere intentional acts.
  • Identify all potential layers of insurance coverage (national fraternity policies, chapter policies, university umbrella policies, homeowner’s policies of individuals).

Navigating these disputes is highly complex, but an experienced hazing lawyer knows how to force insurers to defend their clients and encourages fair settlements, or take the case to trial if necessary. Attorney911 is prepared to fight these battles for City of Grapevine families, ensuring that no stone is left unturned in seeking full and fair compensation.

Practical Guides & FAQs

When faced with a hazing situation, families in City of Grapevine, students, and witnesses often feel overwhelmed and unsure of what to do. This section provides immediate, practical advice to help navigate these difficult circumstances.

For Parents

No parent wants to imagine their child in a hazing situation, but proactive awareness and a plan can make all the difference.

• Warning Signs of Hazing: Be alert to changes in your child’s behavior or physical appearance.

  • Unexplained injuries: Bruises, burns, cuts, or “accidents” that don’t quite add up.
  • Sudden exhaustion: Extreme sleep deprivation, struggling in classes due to lack of rest.
  • Drastic mood changes: Increased anxiety, depression, irritability, or withdrawal from friends and family.
  • Secrecy: An unwillingness to discuss their organization’s activities, or saying “I can’t talk about it.”
  • Constant phone use: Obsessive checking of group chats, fear of missing a “mandatory” call or text, even late at night.
  • Academic decline: Grades dropping suddenly, falling asleep in class, missing assignments.

• How to Talk to Your Child: Approach the conversation with empathy, not judgment.

  • Ask open-ended questions like, “How are things going with [organization]? Is everything okay?”
  • Emphasize their safety and well-being over their affiliation. Reassure them that you will support them regardless of their choices or the consequences.

• If Your Child is Hurt: Prioritize their immediate safety and well-being.

  • Seek medical attention immediately. Do not delay. Document all injuries with photos (multiple angles, with a common object for scale, and over several days to show progression).
  • Document everything else: Write down what they tell you, the names of others involved, dates, times, and locations. Save any texts, emails, or photos they show you.

• Dealing with the University:

  • Document every interaction with university administrators. Keep copies of emails and notes from phone calls.
  • Ask direct questions about prior incidents involving the same organization and what measures the school took in response.

• When to Talk to a Lawyer:

  • If your child has experienced significant physical or psychological harm.
  • If you feel the university or organization is minimizing the incident or trying to cover it up.
  • If you’re unsure of your rights or need guidance on evidence preservation, contact Attorney911 (1-888-ATTY-911) immediately.

For Students / Pledges

If you are a student in City of Grapevine, Grapevine, Euless, or Bedford, or anywhere in Texas, grappling with hazing, know that you are not alone, and you have rights.

• Is This Hazing or Just Tradition? Ask yourself: If you feel unsafe, humiliated, or coerced; if you’re forced to drink or endure pain; if the activity is hidden from parents, professors, or administrators; or if you’re told to keep secrets—it is hazing. Your gut feeling is often right.
• Why “Consent” Isn’t the End of the Story: Despite pressure to agree, the law recognizes that “consent” given under duress, fear of social exclusion, or power imbalance is often not true, free consent. You cannot truly “agree” to be hazed or assaulted.
• Exiting and Reporting Safely:
  • If you are in immediate danger, call 911.
  • You have the right to leave any organization at any time. Do not go to “one last meeting” where you may be further pressured or intimidated.
  • Report privately or anonymously to university authorities (Dean of Students, Title IX Coordinator, Campus Police), or use external resources like the National Anti-Hazing Hotline: 1-888-NOT-HAZE (1-888-668-4293).
• Good-Faith Reporting and Amnesty: Many schools and Texas law offer protections (amnesty) to students who call for help in a medical emergency, even if underage drinking or hazing was involved. Your safety is the priority.

For Former Members / Witnesses

If you were once part of a hazing activity—either as a participant or an observer—and now regret it, your decision to come forward can prevent future harm and save lives.

• We acknowledge the complex emotions involved, including guilt, shame, or fear of retaliation. However, your testimony and evidence are often critical to holding institutions and individuals accountable.
• While your own legal situation may be complex, especially if criminal charges are involved, cooperating with law enforcement or a civil investigation can be an important step towards justice.
• Legal counsel can help you understand your rights and potential exposure, and guide you through the process of providing information or testimony.

Critical Mistakes That Can Destroy Your Case

As Attorney911 emphasizes in our educational videos, knowing what not to do is as crucial as knowing what to do when building a hazing case.

MISTAKES THAT CAN RUIN YOUR HAZING CASE:

1. Letting your child delete messages or “clean up” evidence.

   • What parents think: “I don’t want them to get in more trouble.”
   • Why it’s wrong: This can be seen as a cover-up, potentially hindering legal efforts or even leading to obstruction charges. Evidence disappears fast and is nearly impossible to retrieve later.
   • What to do instead: Preserve everything immediately, even embarrassing content. This includes screenshots of group chats, texts, and DMs.

2. Confronting the fraternity/sorority directly.

   • What parents think: “I’m going to give them a piece of my mind.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Direct confrontation almost guarantees that the organization will immediately lawyer up, destroy evidence, coach witnesses, and prepare their defenses.
   • What to do instead: Document everything you can, then call a lawyer before any direct confrontation.

3. Signing university “release” or “resolution” forms.

   • What universities do: Pressure families to sign waivers or “internal resolution” agreements with promises of internal action.
   • Why it’s wrong: You may unknowingly waive your right to pursue a lawsuit, and these internal settlements are often far below the true value of your case.
   • What to do instead: Do NOT sign anything from the university or an insurance company without an attorney reviewing it first.

4. Posting details on social media before talking to a lawyer.

   • What families think: “I want people to know what happened.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Everything posted online can be used against you. Defense attorneys track social media, and any inconsistencies can harm your credibility. It can also waive legal privileges.
   • What to do instead: Document your situation privately and let your legal team strategically control public messaging.

5. Letting your child go back to “one last meeting.”

   • What fraternities say: “Come talk to us before you do anything drastic.”
   • Why it’s wrong: These meetings are often designed to pressure the student, extract statements that hurt their case, or intimidate them.
   • What to do instead: If you’re considering legal action, all communication should go through your lawyer.

6. Waiting “to see how the university handles it.”

   • What universities promise: “We’re investigating; let us handle this internally.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Evidence disappears, witnesses graduate, the statute of limitations continues to run, and the university controls the narrative to protect its own interests. University disciplinary processes often do not result in true accountability or compensation.
   • What to do instead: Preserve evidence NOW; consult a lawyer immediately.

7. Talking to insurance adjusters without a lawyer.

   • What adjusters say: “We just need your statement to process the claim.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Recorded statements are used against you, and initial settlement offers are almost always lowball.
   • What to do instead: Politely decline and state, “My attorney will contact you.”

You can learn more about these critical errors by watching Attorney911’s video on client mistakes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3IYsoxOSxY.

Short FAQ

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

• “Is hazing a felony in Texas?”
  It can be. While hazing is a Class B misdemeanor by default, it becomes a state jail felony if the hazing causes serious bodily injury or death. Individuals who are officers of an organization and fail to report hazing can also face charges.

• “Can my child bring a case if they ‘agreed’ to the initiation?”
  Yes. Texas Education Code § 37.155 explicitly states that consent is not a defense to hazing. Courts recognize that “consent” given under peer pressure, power imbalance, and 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 from the date of injury or death in Texas. However, the “discovery rule” may extend this if the harm or its cause wasn’t immediately known. In cases involving cover-ups or fraud, the statute may be tolled (paused). Time is critical—evidence disappears, witnesses graduate, and organizations work to destroy records. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 immediately to protect your rights. Our video, “Is There a Statute of Limitations on My Case?”, provides more information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRHwg8tV02c.

• “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 can still be liable based on sponsorship, control, knowledge, and foreseeability. Many major hazing cases that resulted in multi-million-dollar judgments, such as the Pi Delta Psi retreat case or the Sigma Pi death at an unofficial house, occurred off-campus.

• “Will this be confidential, or will my child’s name be in the news?”
  Most hazing cases settle confidentially before trial. While some high-profile cases do garner media attention, it is often possible to request sealed court records and confidential settlement terms. We prioritize your family’s privacy while aggressively pursuing accountability.

About The Manginello Law Firm + Call to Action

When your family faces a hazing case, you need more than a general personal injury lawyer. You need attorneys who understand how powerful institutions fight back—and how to win anyway. At The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC, operating as Attorney911, we are Legal Emergency Lawyers™ specializing in complex litigation, serious injury, and wrongful death cases, including those arising from hazing at Texas universities.

Our firm brings unique qualifications to hazing litigation. Associate Attorney Lupe Peña, a former insurance defense attorney at a national firm, understands precisely how fraternity and university insurance companies value (and undervalue) hazing claims. She anticipates their delay tactics, dissects their coverage exclusion arguments, and knows their settlement strategies because she used to handle them. We know their playbook because we used to run it.

Managing Partner Ralph Manginello brings extensive experience in complex litigation against massive institutions. He was one of the few Texas attorneys involved in the BP Texas City explosion litigation, a monumental case against a multi-billion dollar corporation. His federal court experience means he is not intimidated by national fraternities, large universities, or their formidable defense teams. We’ve taken on billion-dollar corporations and won. We have a proven track record in obtaining multi-million dollar wrongful death and catastrophic injury results, working with economists to value lifetime care needs for brain injuries or permanent disabilities. We don’t settle cheap; we build cases that force accountability.

Attorney911 also possesses crucial expertise in both civil and criminal aspects of hazing. Ralph Manginello’s membership in the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association (HCCLA) provides a deep understanding of how criminal hazing charges interact with civil litigation, allowing us to advise witnesses and former members who may face dual exposure. Our investigative depth involves a network of experts—medical professionals, digital forensics specialists, economists, and psychologists—to uncover critical evidence often hidden in group chats, social media, or internal university files. We investigate like your child’s life depends on it—because it often does.

From our Houston offices, we serve families throughout Texas, including City of Grapevine, Grapevine, Euless, Bedford, Colleyville, Southlake, and Keller. We understand that hazing at Texas universities affects families across the region, regardless of where they reside. We know how to investigate modern hazing effectively, from obtaining deleted group chats to compelling national fraternity records and uncovering university files through discovery. This specialized knowledge is critical for understanding Greek culture, tradition, and how to prove coercion in a court of law.

We know this is one of the hardest things a family can face. Our job at Attorney911 is to get you answers, hold the responsible parties accountable, and help prevent this from happening to another family. We focus on thorough investigation and real accountability, not just quick settlements. We prioritize your family’s privacy while aggressively pursuing justice.

Whether you’re in City of Grapevine or anywhere across Texas, if hazing has impacted your family, you don’t have to face this alone. This fight can be complex, involving powerful institutions and their dedicated defense teams, but with the right legal guidance, accountability is possible. For a confidential, no-obligation consultation, contact The Manginello Law Firm today.

We will listen to what happened without judgment, review any evidence you have, and explain your legal options—whether that be a criminal report, a civil lawsuit, both, or neither. We will discuss realistic timelines and what to expect, answering your questions about costs. We operate on a contingency fee basis, meaning we don’t get paid unless we win your case. Our video, “How Do Contingency Fees Work?” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upcI_j6F7Nc), can provide further explanation. There is no pressure to hire us on the spot; take the time you need to decide. Everything you tell us is confidential.

Call Attorney911:

• 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: If you prefer communication in Spanish, please contact Lupe Peña at lupe@atty911.com for consultation. Servicios legales en español disponibles.

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