Hazing in Texas: A Comprehensive Guide for Winkler County Families

It’s “initiation night” somewhere in Texas. Maybe it’s a remote ranch house outside of College Station, a rented Airbnb near Austin, or an off-campus fraternity house just blocks from the University of Houston. A student you know—a family member, a friend, perhaps even your own child—is being pressured to drink far beyond safe limits, endure physical abuse, or perform degrading acts. Fellow students are filming on their phones, chanting, and laughing—sometimes out of genuine malice, other times swept up in the toxic group dynamic of “tradition.” Someone gets hurt, perhaps severely—they fall, vomit, or collapse. Yet, in the terrifying minutes that follow, nobody wants to call 911. They’re afraid of “getting the chapter shut down” or “getting in trouble” for underage drinking or worse. The student who is hurt feels trapped, a victim of peer pressure and a perverse sense of loyalty.

This isn’t a scene from a movie; it’s the reality of hazing in Texas in 2025. It could happen at any Texas university—including schools where Winkler County families send their children. When the call comes in the middle of the night, asking you to pick up your child from the emergency room after a “fall” or “bad party,” you suddenly find your family in a nightmare that far too many Texans have experienced.

This comprehensive guide is designed for families in Winkler County and across Texas who need to understand what hazing actually looks like today, how Texas and federal law treat these dangerous acts, and what we can learn from major national cases and their impact on Texas universities like UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor. We will also explore what legal options victims and families in Winkler County and throughout Texas may have when hazing leads to injury or death.

Please note that this article provides general information and is not specific legal advice. Every hazing incident is unique, and we at The Manginello Law Firm encourage you to contact us for a confidential evaluation of your specific case. We serve families throughout Texas, including Winkler County and all surrounding areas.

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.” Injuries, especially internal ones or serious intoxication, can worsen rapidly. Prioritize their health above all else.
• Preserve evidence BEFORE it’s deleted: Hazing incidents are often meticulously documented by participants, but these records disappear quickly.
  • Screenshot group chats, texts, and DMs immediately. Focus on capturing full threads, timestamps, and participant names.
  • Photograph injuries from multiple angles. Show the injury in context and then close-up. If possible, place a ruler or coin next to the injury for scale.
  • Save physical items like damaged clothing, receipts for forced purchases, or any objects used in the hazing.
• Write down everything while your memory is fresh: who was involved, what happened, when and where it occurred, and any comments made by participants or observers.
• Do NOT:
  • Confront the fraternity, sorority, or organization directly. This can escalate the situation and lead to evidence destruction.
  • Sign anything from the university or an insurance company without legal advisement. You could inadvertently waive critical legal rights.
  • Post details on public social media. This can compromise your case and open your family to online harassment.
  • Let your child delete messages or “clean up” any evidence. This is a critical mistake we will discuss in detail later.
• Contact an experienced hazing attorney within 24–48 hours: Evidence disappears fast (deleted group chats, destroyed paddles, coached witnesses), and universities often move quickly to control the narrative. We can help preserve evidence and protect your child’s rights. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 for immediate consultation.

Hazing in 2025: What It Really Looks Like

For Winkler County families who might still associate hazing with harmless pranks from movies, the reality today is far darker. Hazing is no longer just “a dumb prank” or “just partying”; it’s a dangerous, often life-threatening practice that exploits young people’s desire to belong. It has evolved, becoming more insidious and harder to detect, but its core purpose remains the same: to assert power and control, often through physical pain, psychological torment, or forced intoxication.

Hazing is any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, whether on or off campus, by one person alone or with others, directed against a student for the purpose of pledging, initiation, affiliation, holding office, or maintaining membership in any organization whose members include students, where that act endangers the mental or physical health or safety of the student.

The crucial point here is that “I agreed to it” does not automatically make it safe or legal when there is peer pressure and a significant power imbalance. The law recognizes that true consent cannot exist in coercive environments.

Main Categories of Hazing

Hazing manifests in various forms, often escalating from subtle psychological manipulation to overt physical violence. Here are the main categories:

• Alcohol and Substance Hazing: This is the most common and often deadliest form. It involves forced or coerced drinking, often through elaborate “games,” “lineups” where pledges consume drinks rapidly, or “Big/Little” events where new members are given entire bottles of liquor. It also includes being pressured to consume unknown or mixed substances, which can have unpredictable and tragic consequences.
• Physical Hazing: These acts directly endanger physical safety. They can include:
  • Paddling and Beatings: Direct physical violence, often with objects, causing bruises, welts, and internal injuries.
  • Extreme Calisthenics, “Workouts,” or “Smokings”: Forced, prolonged physical exertion far beyond normal athletic conditioning, leading to rhabdomyolysis (severe muscle breakdown), exhaustion, and injuries.
  • Sleep, Food, or Water Deprivation: Denying basic human needs, often for extended periods, leading to physical and mental deterioration.
  • Exposure to Extreme Environments: Leaving pledges naked or in minimal clothing in extreme cold or heat, or forcing them into dangerous natural settings.
• Sexualized and Humiliating Hazing: Designed to degrade and strip individuals of their dignity. This includes:
  • Forced Nudity or Partial Nudity: Making new members disrobe, often in front of others.
  • Simulated Sexual Acts: Forcing individuals into positions like the “roasted pig” or mimicking sexual acts.
  • Degrading Costumes or Embarrassing Acts: Making pledges wear humiliating outfits or perform embarrassing actions in public.
  • Acts with Racial, Sexist, or Homophobic Overtones: Using slurs, stereotypes, or forcing individuals to act out offensive roles.
• Psychological Hazing: These acts target mental and emotional well-being, often causing lasting trauma. They include:
  • Verbal Abuse, Threats, and Isolation: Constant yelling, insults, threats, and preventing new members from contacting family or friends.
  • Manipulation or Forced Confessions: Pressuring individuals to reveal personal secrets or lie.
  • Public Shaming: Humiliating individuals in front of others through social media posts, group chat “roasts,” or in-person taunting sessions.
• Digital/Online Hazing: The 21st-century evolution of hazing leverages technology to extend control and humiliation. This can involve:
  • Group Chat Dares and “Challenges”: Forcing participation in online challenges that are humiliating, illegal, or dangerous.
  • Public Humiliation via Social Media: Requiring pledges to post embarrassing content on Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, or Discord, or sharing videos of hazing activities.
  • Pressure to Create or Share Compromising Images/Videos: Coercing new members into producing or sharing sexually suggestive or degrading content.
  • 24/7 Digital Control: Requiring immediate responses to group chats at all hours, using location-sharing apps (e.g., Find My Friends, Life360) to track pledges, and policing their social media activity.

Where Hazing Actually Happens

Hazing is not confined to one type of organization or a single campus area. While fraternities and sororities often make headlines, hazing is a widespread problem that can occur in any group where there’s an imbalance of power and a desire for membership. This includes:

• Fraternities and Sororities: Across all councils—Interfraternity Council (IFC), Panhellenic Council (NPC), National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC), and multicultural Greek councils.
• Corps of Cadets / ROTC / Military-Style Groups: These organizations, particularly at institutions like Texas A&M, often have long-standing traditions that, if not carefully managed, can cross the line into dangerous hazing.
• Spirit squads, Tradition Clubs, and Student Organizations: From “Absolute Texxas” at UT to similar groups at other campuses, the pressure to uphold “tradition” can lead to hazing.
• Athletic Teams: Across all sports—football, basketball, baseball, track, volleyball, cheerleading, and even club sports—hazing is used as a twisted form of team bonding.
• Marching Bands and Performance Groups: Even organizations focused on arts and culture can fall victim to hazing dynamics, as evidenced by incidents like the FAMU marching band tragedy.
• Other Groups: Some service, cultural, and academic organizations can also develop environments where hazing practices take root.

Hazing persists because of social status, a distorted view of “tradition,” and a powerful culture of secrecy. New members are often told that silence is a sign of loyalty, that “everyone goes through it,” or that revealing what happened will “get the organization shut down”—preying on their desire to belong and their fear of repercussions.

Law & Liability Framework (Texas + Federal)

Understanding the legal landscape surrounding hazing is crucial for Winkler County families seeking justice and accountability. Texas, like many states, has specific laws addressing hazing, which are further supplemented by federal regulations and broader principles of civil law.

Texas Hazing Law Basics (Education Code)

The State of Texas has clear anti-hazing provisions outlined in the Texas Education Code. These laws aim to protect students from the dangerous and degrading practices associated with hazing.

The Texas Education Code, Chapter 37, Subchapter F, defines hazing as any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, on or off campus, by an individual acting 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.

What does this mean in plain terms? If someone makes you do something dangerous, harmful, or degrading to join or stay in a group, and they either meant to do it or were reckless about the risk of causing harm, that is hazing under Texas law.

Key points of Texas hazing law:

• Location doesn’t matter: Hazing can happen on or off campus. A remote cabin, a private house, or even an Airbnb can be the scene of hazing, and the law still applies.
• Mental or physical harm: The law recognizes that hazing isn’t just about physical injury; severe psychological distress and mental torment also constitute harm.
• Intent: You don’t have to prove the perpetrators had malicious intent. “Reckless” conduct, meaning they knew or should have known the risks but disregarded them, is enough to establish hazing.
• “Consent” is not a defense: This is critical. Even if a student verbally agrees or goes along with hazing activities, the law explicitly states that their “consent” is not a defense. The coercive nature of hazing environments means true, free consent is often impossible.

Criminal Penalties for Hazing in Texas:

• Class B Misdemeanor: This is the default classification for hazing that does not result in serious injury. Penalties can include up to 180 days in county jail and/or a fine of up to $2,000.
• Class A Misdemeanor: If hazing causes an injury that requires medical treatment.
• State Jail Felony: Hazing becomes a felony if it causes serious bodily injury or death. This carries significantly harsher penalties, including incarceration in a state jail for 180 days to two years and a fine of up to $10,000.
• Failure to Report: Texas law also makes it a criminal offense for an officer or a member of an organization who has knowledge of hazing to fail to report it.
• Retaliation: Retaliating against someone who reports hazing is also a misdemeanor offense.

Organizational Liability:

Under Texas law, organizations (fraternities, sororities, clubs, teams, etc.) can face criminal penalties if they:

• Authorized or encouraged the hazing, OR
• An officer or member acting in their official capacity knew about hazing and failed to report it.

Penalties for organizations can include fines of up to $10,000 per violation, and universities can revoke recognition and ban the organization from campus. This is important because it shows that both individuals and the organization itself can be held accountable criminally, which in turn strengthens civil cases.

Immunity for Good-Faith Reporting:

Texas law recognizes the courage it takes to report hazing. A person who, in good faith, reports a hazing incident to university authorities or law enforcement is generally immune from civil or criminal liability that might result from that report. Furthermore, in medical emergencies, Texas law and many university policies provide Good Samaritan amnesty for students who call 911, even if they were underage drinking or otherwise involved in the events leading to the medical emergency. This is intended to encourage students to seek help without fear of personal repercussions.

Criminal vs. Civil Cases

It’s important for Winkler County families to understand that legal action for hazing can proceed on two distinct, though sometimes overlapping, tracks: criminal and civil.

• Criminal Cases: These are brought by the state (prosecutor) on behalf of the public. The primary aim is punishment for breaking the law (e.g., jail time, fines, probation). In hazing incidents, criminal charges can range from misdemeanor hazing offenses to furnishing alcohol to minors, assault, battery, or even manslaughter in fatal cases. The burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
• Civil Cases: These are brought by victims or their surviving families against the individuals and organizations responsible for the harm. The primary aim is monetary compensation for damages suffered and to hold responsible parties accountable. Civil hazing lawsuits often focus on legal theories such as negligence, gross negligence, wrongful death, negligent hiring or supervision, premises liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The burden of proof in civil cases is typically “preponderance of the evidence,” which is a lower standard than in criminal cases.

A significant point for families in Winkler County to remember is that a criminal conviction for hazing is not required to pursue a successful civil case. Even if criminal charges are not filed or do not result in a conviction, victims and their families can still pursue a civil lawsuit to recover damages. Both types of cases can run side-by-side, influencing each other but ultimately operating independently.

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

Beyond Texas state law, federal regulations also impact how hazing is addressed and reported by colleges and universities.

• Stop Campus Hazing Act (2024): This landmark federal legislation, signed into law, mandates increased transparency and prevention efforts from colleges and universities that receive federal funding. By around 2026, institutions will be required to:
  • Publicly report hazing incidents in their annual security reports (Clery Act reports).
  • Establish comprehensive hazing prevention programs.
  • Maintain public data on hazing violations and disciplinary actions.
    This act aims to provide families with more information about hazing risks at specific institutions and encourage proactive prevention.
• Title IX: This federal civil rights law prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. If hazing involves sexual harassment, sexual assault, gender-based hostility, or exploitation based on gender identity, it falls under Title IX. Universities have a legal obligation to investigate and respond to such incidents promptly and equitably.
• 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 direct “Clery crime,” incidents involving assault, sexual assault, menacing, or violations related to alcohol or drugs that occur during hazing activities must often be reported under Clery. This helps create a clearer picture of campus safety risks for students and their families.

Who Can Be Liable in a Civil Hazing Lawsuit

For families in Winkler County considering legal action, understanding who can be held responsible in a civil hazing lawsuit is key. Liability often extends beyond just the students directly involved.

• Individual Students: The students who planned, coordinated, supplied alcohol or drugs, carried out the hazing acts, or actively participated in a cover-up can be held personally liable. This can include “pledge educators,” chapter officers, or even general members.
• Local Chapter / Organization: The specific fraternity, sorority, club, or team itself (if it’s a legal entity) can be sued. This means the assets of the local chapter might be available, and judgments against the chapter can lead to its dissolution and the loss of its charter.
• National Fraternity/Sorority: The national headquarters or governing body often has significant liability. These national organizations set policies, provide training, receive dues from their chapters, and have a duty to supervise and enforce their rules. Liability can hinge on whether the national organization knew or should have known about a pattern of hazing at a local chapter or within the organization generally, and whether they failed to act effectively. The BP Texas City explosion litigation, where Ralph Manginello was involved, showed how large corporations can be held accountable for the actions of their subsidiaries or affiliates; similar principles apply to national Greek organizations.
• University or Governing Board: The college or university itself, or its board of regents, may be sued. This is often based on theories of:
  • Negligence: Failure to adequately supervise, warn, discipline, or enforce policies.
  • Gross Negligence: A conscious indifference to known risks or a pattern of ignoring red flags.
  • Title IX Violations: If the hazing involved gender-based discrimination or sexual harassment.
  • Breach of Contract: In some cases, if the university failed to uphold its own safety policies as part of its educational contract with students.
    Key questions typically involve whether the university had prior warnings, how effectively it enforced its hazing policies, and whether it showed a “deliberate indifference” to known dangers. Public universities like UH, Texas A&M, and UT may also raise sovereign immunity defenses, but notable exceptions can apply, especially in cases of gross negligence. Private universities like SMU and Baylor generally have fewer immunity protections.
• Third Parties: Other entities can sometimes be brought into a lawsuit, including:
  • Landlords/Property Owners: If hazing occurred at a privately owned house or event space, the property owner might be liable if they knew or should have known about dangerous activities occurring on their property.
  • Bars or Alcohol Providers: Under Texas “dram shop” laws, establishments that overserve visibly intoxicated individuals or serve minors who then cause harm can be held liable.
  • Security Companies or Event Organizers: If their negligence contributed to the incident.

Every hazing case is fact-specific; not every party is liable in every situation. An experienced hazing attorney understands how to identify all potentially liable parties and build a comprehensive case against them.

National Hazing Case Patterns (Anchor Stories)

To understand hazing in Texas, Winkler County families benefit from knowing the patterns seen in major national incidents. These cases are not just headlines; they are precedents that shape laws, university policies, and civil litigation strategies. They reveal a disturbing, recurring script of forced drinking, physical abuse, cover-ups, and devastating outcomes.

Alcohol Poisoning & Death Pattern

The vast majority of hazing-related fatalities involve extreme alcohol consumption. These cases demonstrate a tragic predictability, as organizations continue to use the same dangerous methods despite repeated warnings and prior deaths.

• Timothy Piazza – Penn State University, Beta Theta Pi (2017): Timothy Piazza, a 19-year-old pledge, died from traumatic brain injuries after a “bid acceptance” night where he was forced to consume excessive alcohol. Fraternity security cameras captured his multiple falls and the horrifying fact that members delayed calling for medical help for nearly 12 hours, despite his obvious distress. The criminal fallout was immense, with dozens of fraternity members facing over 1,000 criminal counts, including involuntary manslaughter and hazing. The civil litigation led to confidential settlements and spurred the creation of the Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing Law in Pennsylvania, significantly strengthening anti-hazing statutes. This case highlighted that extreme intoxication, deliberate delay in calling 911, and a pervasive culture of silence are legally devastating and often lead to severe criminal and civil consequences.
• Andrew Coffey – Florida State University, Pi Kappa Phi (2017): During a “Big Brother Night” event, Andrew Coffey, a pledge, died from acute alcohol poisoning after being given a handle of hard liquor and forced to chug it. Multiple members were prosecuted for misdemeanor hazing. In response to the tragedy and multiple hazing incidents, Florida State temporarily suspended all Greek life and overhauled its policies. This case tragically underscored how ritualistic “tradition” drinking nights are a recurring script for disaster, showing university administrators that severe, across-the-board action is sometimes necessary.
• Max Gruver – Louisiana State University, Phi Delta Theta (2017): Max Gruver died from alcohol toxicity with a blood alcohol content of 0.495% after participating in a “Bible study” drinking game. Pledges were forced to drink heavily if they answered questions incorrectly. One member was convicted of negligent homicide. Gruver’s death directly led to the enactment of the Max Gruver Act in Louisiana, which made hazing a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, particularly in cases involving serious injury or death. This case is a powerful reminder that legislative change often follows public outrage and undeniable proof of hazing’s lethal consequences.
• Stone Foltz – Bowling Green State University, Pi Kappa Alpha (2021): Stone Foltz, a 20-year-old pledge, died from alcohol poisoning after being forced to consume an entire bottle of liquor during a “Big/Little” night. Multiple fraternity members were convicted of hazing-related charges. In a significant civil outcome, Foltz’s family reached a $10 million settlement in 2023, with approximately $7 million coming from the Pi Kappa Alpha national fraternity and an additional $3 million from Bowling Green State University. This demonstrates that not only fraternities but also universities can face substantial financial and reputational consequences when hazing occurs under their watch, especially when they are seen to have failed in their duty of care.

Physical & Ritualized Hazing Pattern

Beyond alcohol, physical and ritualized hazing, often intended to “break down” pledges, can also lead to catastrophic injury and death.

• Chun “Michael” Deng – Baruch College, Pi Delta Psi (2013): Michael Deng, a pledge, died from traumatic brain injuries during an off-campus retreat in the Pocono Mountains. He was blindfolded, weighted down with a heavy backpack, and repeatedly tackled during a “glass ceiling” ritual. Fraternity members delayed calling 911 for over an hour. This landmark case resulted in multiple members being convicted, and notably, the national fraternity itself was convicted of aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter, and banned from Pennsylvania for 10 years. This incident proves that off-campus “retreats” are not a shield; they can be as dangerous or worse than on-campus events, and national organizations can be held criminally and civilly liable.

Athletic Program Hazing & Abuse

Hazing is not exclusive to Greek life; it is a pervasive issue that can infiltrate major athletic programs, often protected by a culture of prestige and powerful alumni networks.

• Northwestern University Football (2023–2025): Multiple former football players alleged widespread sexualized and racist hazing within the program over many years. This included practices such as “running” where players were sexually assaulted by teammates. The scandal led to the firing of long-time head coach Pat Fitzgerald, who then filed a wrongful-termination lawsuit against the university, which was confidentially settled in August 2025. Multiple players also sued Northwestern and coaching staff. This case highlighted that hazing extends beyond Greek life into high-profile, big-money athletic programs, raising profound questions about institutional oversight and accountability.

What These Cases Mean for Texas Families

These national cases, while occurring outside of Texas, set crucial precedents and reveal patterns directly relevant to Winkler County families whose children attend universities across our state.

• Common Threads: The incidents share disturbing commonalities: forced drinking, physical or psychological humiliation, violence, deliberate delay or denial of medical care, and concerted efforts to cover up the events.
• Accountability Follows Tragedy: Multi-million-dollar settlements, significant verdicts, and legislative reforms often follow only after a tragedy and subsequent determined litigation by victims’ families.
• Foreseeability: The sheer number of similar incidents proves that these organizations, and often the universities, cannot claim ignorance. They have had repeated warnings about the dangers of hazing.
• Texas is Not Immune: Hazing at UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, or Baylor happens within a legal and cultural landscape shaped by these national lessons. Winkler County families facing a hazing incident are not alone; powerful legal precedents exist to support their quest for justice.

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

For Winkler County families considering college options or dealing with hazing incidents involving their children, understanding the specific environments at Texas’s major universities is crucial. While our firm is based in Houston and serves all of Texas, we recognize that families across the state, including in Winkler County, often send their children to these prominent institutions. Although Winkler County is geographically distant from these metropolitan areas, the legal principles and dangers discussed here are universally applicable to any Texas campus.

University of Houston (UH)

The University of Houston, a vibrant urban campus in the heart of Houston, caters to a diverse student body, blending both commuter and residential populations. It boasts a dynamic Greek life system across multiple councils (IFC, Panhellenic, NPHC, Multicultural), alongside a wide array of other student organizations, clubs, and sports teams—all of which are susceptible to hazing. As the premier public research university in Houston, UH attracts students from across Texas, including Winkler County, seeking a metropolitan higher education experience.

UH’s Hazing Policy & Reporting

UH has a clear, unequivocal hazing policy, which prohibits such acts whether conducted on-campus or off-campus. Its regulations explicitly forbid acts such as forced consumption of alcohol, drugs, or food, sleep deprivation, physical mistreatment, and activities that cause mental distress as part of initiation or affiliation. UH provides reporting channels through the Dean of Students office, the Office of Student Conduct, and the University of Houston Police Department (UHPD). The university publicizes its hazing statement and some disciplinary outcomes on its website, aiming for transparency in its anti-hazing efforts.

Example Incident & Response at UH

In 2016, a particularly severe incident involving Pi Kappa Alpha (Pike) at UH made headlines. Pledges were allegedly deprived of adequate food, water, and sleep during an off-campus “pledge week.” One student suffered a lacerated spleen after being slammed onto a table or similar surface during the activities. The local chapter faced misdemeanor hazing charges, and the university moved to suspend the chapter permanently, highlighting UH’s willingness to take action against severe hazing. Subsequent disciplinary references at UH have also involved fraternities cited for “behavior likely to produce mental or physical discomfort,” including dangerous alcohol misuse and other policy violations that led to further suspensions or probationary periods. Such incidents underscore the ongoing challenges even with strict policies in place.

How a UH Hazing Case Might Proceed

Hazing cases arising from incidents at the University of Houston would typically involve agencies such as UHPD and/or the Houston Police Department, depending on the specific location of the incident and severity of the crime. Civil lawsuits would likely be filed in courts with jurisdiction over Houston and Harris County, where the university is located. Potential defendants in such a case could include the individual students involved, the local chapter itself, the national fraternity/sorority, potentially the university, and even property owners where the hazing occurred. For Winkler County families, this typically means working with a Houston-based legal team that has local court familiarity.

What UH Students & Parents Should Do

For students attending UH and their families in Winkler County and beyond, proactive measures are vital:

• Familiarize yourself with UH’s official hazing policy and understand that all forms of hazing are prohibited, regardless of location.
• Utilize UH’s reporting channels if you suspect or experience hazing. This includes notifying the Dean of Students, UHPD, or using anonymous online reporting forms linked on the university’s Greek Life pages.
• Document everything discreetly and safely. This means screenshots of group chats, photos of injuries or degrading activities, and keeping a detailed log of events.
• Understand that previous complaints and past disciplinary actions against fraternities and student organizations at UH can be uncovered through legal discovery.
• Talk to a lawyer experienced in Houston-based hazing cases. An attorney can help navigate the complex university processes, protect your child from retaliation, and work to uncover prior discipline and internal university files that might be crucial to a civil case. Our team at The Manginello Law Firm is intimately familiar with the legal landscape of Harris County.

Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University, a storied institution with a deep-rooted sense of tradition, stands as a titan in higher education, particularly known for its loyal alumni base, research prowess, and the iconic Corps of Cadets. This highly disciplined, military-style environment, alongside a robust Greek life presence, creates a unique cultural backdrop for student organizations. Aggies, including many from Winkler County and across West Texas, are drawn to A&M for its camaraderie and proud traditions. However, within such environments, hazing can sometimes hide in plain sight under the guise of “tradition” or “toughness.”

A&M’s Hazing Policy & Reporting

Texas A&M maintains a strict anti-hazing policy, emphasizing that hazing is illegal under state law and a violation of university rules. The policy strictly prohibits any practice that would cause mental or physical discomfort, degradation, or disgrace regardless of a participant’s willingness. A&M offers multiple reporting avenues, including the Office of Student Conduct, University Police, and a dedicated Ethics & Compliance Hotline, providing options for both direct and anonymous reports.

Example Incidents & Response at A&M

Texas A&M has faced its share of hazing controversies impacting both Greek life and the revered Corps of Cadets:

• Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) Lawsuit (2021): Two pledges alleged severe hazing that resulted in chemical burns requiring skin graft surgeries. The lawsuit claimed they were forced into strenuous physical activity and then had substances, including what they believed to be industrial-strength cleaner, raw eggs, and spit, poured on them. The fraternity was suspended for two years by the university, and the pledges sued the organization for $1 million. This case powerfully illustrates the extent of physical harm that can arise from misguided “initiation.”
• Corps of Cadets Lawsuit (2023): A cadet filed a lawsuit alleging degrading hazing practices within the Corps. The allegations included 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 in damages, highlighting the fact that even within the highly regulated Corps, hazing remains a serious concern that the university stated it addressed under its internal regulations processes. This incident brought to the forefront the long-standing challenges of managing deeply ingrained traditions within military organizations.
• Kappa Sigma (2023): Ongoing litigation surrounds allegations of severe injuries, including rhabdomyolysis (severe muscle breakdown) from extreme physical hazing by a Kappa Sigma chapter at Texas A&M. This case is currently being litigated with a focus on comprehensive recovery for the extensive physical harm suffered.

For Texas A&M, hazing cases often scrutinize both Greek life organizations and Corps traditions, examining whether “tradition” provided a cover for illegal activities.

How an A&M Hazing Case Might Proceed

Hazing cases originating from Texas A&M would likely involve Brazos County courts and local law enforcement (College Station Police Department, Brazos County Sheriff’s Office) and/or the Texas A&M University Police Department. The state of Texas is often involved for criminal elements, and for Winkler County families, pursuing a civil claim would mean engaging a firm with expertise across state courts and the ability to leverage a network of experts to unpack complex cases involving both campus and off-campus incidents.

What A&M Students & Parents Should Do

Students at Texas A&M and their families from areas like Winkler County should be especially vigilant:

• Be aware of the distinction between genuine tradition and illegal hazing. If an activity involves secrecy, humiliation, or danger, it’s hazing.
• Document any suspicious activities within Greek organizations or the Corps, including physical training that seems excessive or punitive.
• Utilize A&M’s Ethics & Compliance Hotline (1-888-501-3855) or the Office of Student Conduct for reporting.
• Understand that Texas A&M, as a public institution, may invoke sovereign immunity, but experience hazing attorneys know how to navigate such defenses by focusing on exceptions like gross negligence or Title IX violations.
• Contact an attorney immediately if an injury occurs. A lawyer can help determine the best course of action and ensure that critical evidence is preserved before campus authorities or the organization can influence the narrative.

University of Texas at Austin (UT)

The University of Texas at Austin is a flagship institution, drawing students from every corner of the state, including Winkler County, to its vibrant academic and social landscape. With a sprawling campus in the heart of the state capital, UT Austin boasts one of the nation’s largest and most active Greek life communities, alongside countless student organizations, athletic programs, and spirit groups, all of which face the persistent challenge of hazing.

UT’s Hazing Policy & Reporting

UT Austin has a strict and clearly articulated anti-hazing policy. The university defines hazing in line with Texas Education Code and prohibits any intentional, knowing, or reckless act related to initiation or membership that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student. UT emphasizes that consent is not a defense and provides clear reporting channels through the Dean of Students, the Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, and the University of Texas Police Department (UTPD).

UT’s Transparent Record: Documented Incidents & Response

Perhaps most significantly, UT Austin is notable for its publicly available Hazing Violations web page (hazing.utexas.edu). This page transparently lists organizations, the dates of their violations, the type of conduct, and the sanctions imposed. This level of transparency, while still under the scope of federal privacy laws, is a powerful tool for families to research specific organizations.

Example entries from UT’s public record often include:

• Pi Kappa Alpha (Pike) (2023): New members were allegedly directed to consume large quantities of milk and perform strenuous calisthenics, leading to physical discomfort. The university found this to be hazing, placing the chapter on probation and requiring extensive hazing-prevention education. This incident underscores how hazing continues to evolve, often under the guise of “physical conditioning.”
• Other Groups: UT’s list commonly features other fraternities, sororities, and even prominent spirit organizations (like the “Texas Wranglers” or “Absolute Texxas”) sanctioned for a range of violations—from forced workouts and alcohol-related hazing to psychological torment and punishment-based practices designed to “earn” membership.

UT’s high level of transparency, compared to some other schools, is commendable. However, the recurring appearances of certain organizations on its violation list highlight the ongoing struggle to eradicate hazing, even with robust policies and public reporting.

How a UT-Austin Hazing Case Might Proceed

Hazing cases from UT Austin may involve UTPD and/or the Austin Police Department, particularly if serious criminal conduct occurred. Civil lawsuits would typically be filed in courts with jurisdiction over Austin and Travis County. The fact that UT is a public institution means that, like Texas A&M, it may assert sovereign immunity, but our experienced hazing lawyers understand how to navigate these challenges by exploring exceptions, particularly in cases of gross negligence or Title IX violations. The readily available public record of prior violations from UT’s website can be a powerful asset in civil suits, demonstrating a pattern of misconduct and the university’s prior knowledge of hazing risks.

What UT-Austin Students & Parents Should Do

For Winkler County families with children at UT Austin or considering enrollment:

• Regularly check UT’s Hazing Violations page (hazing.utexas.edu). This is a critical resource for understanding the history of specific organizations.
• Understand that “tradition” does not excuse hazing. Many long-standing UT traditions, if they involve harm or humiliation, are illegal and against university policy.
• Utilize UT’s robust reporting structure including the Office of Student Conduct, UTPD, or the university’s anonymous reporting options.
• Preserve all evidence of hazing, especially digital communications. The defense will seek to discredit any claims, so clear documentation is vital.
• Consult an attorney with experience in Texas hazing litigation immediately. A lawyer can help interpret UT’s records, protect your child’s rights during a university investigation, and pursue civil action if warranted.

Southern Methodist University (SMU)

Southern Methodist University, nestled in an affluent Dallas neighborhood, holds a reputation as a prestigious private institution with a highly active and prominent Greek life scene. Its smaller, more intimate campus, often drawing students from exclusive high schools and communities, shapes an environment where social standing and tradition are often emphasized. For Winkler County families, SMU represents a distinct educational and social experience within Texas.

SMU’s Hazing Policy & Reporting

SMU maintains clear anti-hazing policies that align with Texas state law, strictly prohibiting any act that could endanger the physical or mental well-being of students in the context of group affiliation. As a private institution, SMU typically relies on its own internal conduct processes, but cooperates with local law enforcement when criminal activity is involved. SMU provides multiple channels for reporting, including the Dean of Students’ office, campus police, and anonymous reporting systems like “Real Response,” designed to encourage students to come forward without fear of retribution.

Example Incident & Response at SMU

SMU has also faced its share of hazing challenges, often leading to significant internal disciplinary action:

• Kappa Alpha Order Incident (2017): This incident garnered significant attention when its chapter was investigated and later suspended. Allegations included new members being paddled, forced to consume alcohol to dangerous levels, and deprived of sleep. The chapter faced severe restrictions on its activities and was prohibited from recruiting new members for several years, ultimately reinstating its chapter in a more monitored environment. This case highlights SMU’s sometimes swift and decisive internal disciplinary responses to hazing.
• SAE Sanctions (2023): Another incident involving Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) resulted in immediate interim suspension by the university in October 2023 due to allegations including “harassment, bodily harm, alcohol and drug related violations, and endangering of others.” This demonstrated SMU’s low tolerance for such reported behavior and indicates the readiness of the university to act quickly.

How an SMU Hazing Case Might Proceed

As a private university, SMU is not shielded by sovereign immunity, potentially simplifying the process of pursuing a civil claim against the institution itself compared to public universities. Civil suits arising from hazing at SMU would be litigated in courts within Dallas County, involving local law enforcement (SMU Police and/or Dallas Police Department). For Winkler County families, this may involve navigating a private university’s internal processes, which can be less transparent than those of public institutions, emphasizing the need for experienced legal counsel.

What SMU Students & Parents Should Do

For students at SMU and their families in Winkler County:

• Understand that SMU, while private, is still subject to Texas state hazing laws. Its internal disciplinary actions are separate from criminal or civil liability.
• Actively utilize SMU’s “Real Response” system or contact the Dean of Students’ office if hazing is suspected. Remember, reporting internally can trigger investigations, but legal action requires separate counsel.
• Document everything vigilantly, given the potentially less public nature of private university investigations. Collect screenshots, physical evidence, and witness contacts.
• Recognize that SMU’s reputation and financial resources mean it will likely mount a robust defense against any hazing allegations. You need an attorney who is equally prepared to counter those tactics.
• Contact a hazing attorney immediately to assess your legal options and ensure evidence is preserved before internal university processes potentially obscure critical facts.

Baylor University

Baylor University, a private Baptist university in Waco, holds a unique position among Texas institutions. While deeply rooted in its religious identity, Baylor has faced intense scrutiny in recent years, particularly concerning its handling of Title IX sexual assault allegations involving its football program. This history of institutional oversight failures adds another layer of complexity to any hazing incident, creating an environment where internal accountability structures may be viewed with skepticism. For Winkler County families, Baylor represents a distinct blend of faith, academics, and, at times, controversy.

Baylor’s Hazing Policy & Reporting

Baylor maintains a strict “zero tolerance” policy for hazing, explicitly forbidding any activity that endangers a student’s mental or physical health or safety. Its policies are aligned with Texas state law and apply to all university-sanctioned organizations, whether on or off campus. Baylor provides reporting mechanisms through its Student Affairs office, Baylor Police Department, and an anonymous EthicsPoint hotline. The university regularly reiterates its commitment to student safety and compliance with anti-hazing statutes.

Example Incidents & Response at Baylor

Baylor, despite its “zero tolerance” stance, has seen hazing incidents occur within its athletic programs:

• Baylor Baseball Hazing (2020): Following an investigation into hazing allegations, 14 players from the Baylor baseball team were suspended. These suspensions were staggered over the early part of the season, indicating a concerted effort by the university to address the issue while managing the practicalities of an athletic program. While details of the specific hazing acts were not fully publicized, the incident highlighted that hazing extends beyond Greek life into other high-profile student organizations at Baylor.

These incidents, particularly in the context of Baylor’s broader institutional challenges and past Title IX scandals, can create an environment where public trust may be fractured. Official statements of “zero tolerance” are crucial, but recurring misconduct shows the difficulty in matching policy with consistent enforcement.

How a Baylor Hazing Case Might Proceed

As a private institution, Baylor University does not benefit from sovereign immunity, making it directly eligible for civil lawsuits in Waco and McLennan County courts. Lawsuits could involve the Baylor Police Department and/or the Waco Police Department for criminal elements. For Winkler County families pursuing a hazing claim against Baylor or its organizations, the legal process would focus on the university’s adherence to its own stated policies, its history of similar incidents, and its duty of care to students. The complex interplay of Baylor’s religious identity, its prior legal and public relations battles, and its internal processes all play a role in crafting a legal strategy.

What Baylor Students & Parents Should Do

For students and families from Winkler County connected to Baylor:

• Familiarize yourself with Baylor’s hazing policies and understand how they fit within the broader context of its previous institutional challenges.
• Utilize Baylor’s anonymous EthicsPoint hotline (1-866-294-9584) or contact Student Affairs directly if you suspect hazing.
• Be meticulous in documenting any hazing incidents. This includes gathering digital evidence (texts, photos, videos), keeping detailed logs, and identifying potential witnesses.
• Understand that Baylor, due to its private status and history, will likely engage robust legal counsel to defend against claims. You need an equally experienced attorney to represent your interests.
• Seek immediate legal counsel from a hazing attorney to ensure your rights are protected and that all necessary evidence is secured before the university’s internal processes conclude.

Fraternities & Sororities: Campus-Specific + National Histories

When hazing occurs at a local chapter at UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, or Baylor, the reach of accountability often extends far beyond the immediate students involved. Many of these organizations are part of vast national networks, and their histories of hazing—both locally and nationwide—are a critical factor in building a legal case. For Winkler County families, understanding this dual layer of responsibility is paramount.

Why National Histories Matter

The reality is that national fraternities and sororities, including many with chapters across Texas, operate with an inherent tension. On one hand, they often publish extensive anti-hazing policies, conduct risk management trainings, and assert a commitment to member safety. On the other hand, a disturbing pattern of hazing persists within many of their local chapters.

Why does this matter legally? Because national headquarters:

• Have Prior Knowledge: Many national organizations have received decades of warnings, countless internal incident reports, and have faced numerous lawsuits or criminal proceedings related to hazing. They know the common hazing “scripts”—the forced drinking, the secretive rituals, the physical abuse.
• Set Policies (and Often Fail to Enforce Them): Their thick anti-hazing manuals and educational materials exist precisely because they have seen deaths and catastrophic injuries in the past. When these policies are mere window dressing and not genuinely enforced, it strengthens arguments for negligent supervision against the national entity.
• Exert Control and Benefit: National fraternities and sororities collect dues, provide resources, offer chapter support, and benefit from their brand. With this benefit comes a duty to ensure their local chapters uphold national standards and do not engage in illegal or dangerous activities.

When a Texas chapter at a university like UT Austin, Texas A&M, or UH, repeats the same dangerous hazing script that another chapter of the same national organization got shut down or sued for in another state, that can constitute powerful evidence of foreseeability. The national organization can argue it had no knowledge or control, but a long history of identical behavior undermines that defense. This pattern evidence is crucial in supporting claims of negligence or even punitive damages against the national entities.

Organization Mapping: Local Chapters & National Histories

While it’s impossible to list every single fraternity and sorority and their complete hazing histories here, we can highlight major organizations with a known national pattern of incidents that have local chapters at Texas universities.

• Pi Kappa Alpha (ΠΚΑ / Pike):
  • Local Presence: Active chapters at UH, Texas A&M, and UT Austin, among other Texas schools.
  • National History: Pi Kappa Alpha has a deeply troubling national history, particularly concerning alcohol hazing during “Big/Little” events. The tragic Stone Foltz case at Bowling Green State University (2021), where a pledge died from alcohol poisoning after being forced to consume an entire bottle of liquor, resulted in a $10 million settlement for his family. Previously, David Bogenberger died in 2012 at Northern Illinois University from alcohol poisoning at a Pike event, leading to a $14 million settlement. These cases demonstrate a clear national pattern of dangerous alcohol hazing that national Pike had been warned about repeatedly, yet failed to effectively address.
  • Impact: When a Pike chapter in Texas is involved in alcohol hazing, the national organization’s argument that they were unaware of such practices rings hollow against this extensive history.
• Sigma Alpha Epsilon (ΣΑΕ / SAE):
  • Local Presence: Active chapters at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, and SMU, among others.
  • National History: SAE has been among the most problematic national fraternities, notoriously facing numerous hazing-related deaths and severe injuries nationwide involving alcohol poisoning and physical brutality. The organization even eliminated its traditional pledge process in 2014 in an attempt to curb these incidents, yet hazing persists.
    • Recent allegations include a traumatic brain injury case filed in 2023 at the University of Alabama and a harrowing 2021 incident at Texas A&M University where pledges allegedly suffered severe chemical burns from industrial-strength cleaner poured on them during hazing.
    • In January 2024, a student alleged assault by SAE members at a party at the University of Texas at Austin, with the chapter already under suspension for prior violations.
  • Impact: These incidents are not isolated; they are part of a national pattern of alleged misconduct that can be used to show foreseeability and systemic issues when an SAE chapter in Texas is involved.
• Phi Delta Theta (ΦΔΘ):
  • Local Presence: Chapters at Baylor, Texas A&M, SMU, and UH.
  • National History: The death of Max Gruver at Louisiana State University (2017) from acute alcohol poisoning during a “Bible study” drinking game cast a long shadow over Phi Delta Theta. This case led to Louisiana’s felony hazing statute, the Max Gruver Act, and a $6.1 million verdict later won by the family.
  • Impact: The Gruver case serves as a stark reminder of the deadly consequences of alcohol-fueled hazing within Phi Delta Theta, and any similar incidents at their Texas chapters would face intense scrutiny.
• Pi Kappa Phi (ΠΚΦ):
  • Local Presence: Chapters at UH, Texas A&M, and UT Austin.
  • National History: The death of Andrew Coffey at Florida State University (2017) from acute alcohol poisoning during a “Big Brother Night” involving handles of hard liquor is a significant black mark for Pi Kappa Phi. This incident led to criminal prosecutions and a temporary suspension of all Greek life at FSU.
  • Impact: This national tragedy highlights the dangers of specific drinking rituals that Pi Kappa Phi chapters might attempt to perpetuate elsewhere, including in Texas.
• Beta Theta Pi (ΒΘΠ):
  • Local Presence: Chapters at UH, Texas A&M, and UT Austin.
  • National History: The horrific death of Timothy Piazza at Penn State (2017) after falling repeatedly during an extreme alcohol hazing event where medical help was delayed for hours, is one of the most well-known hazing cases in U.S. history. This led to massive criminal charges and landmark legislative changes in Pennsylvania.
  • Impact: The Piazza case makes it difficult for Beta Theta Pi to claim ignorance of the severe risks associated with alcohol hazing and delayed medical care.
• Phi Gamma Delta (ΦΓΔ / FIJI):
  • Local Presence: Chapter at Texas A&M.
  • National History: The catastrophic brain injury suffered by Danny Santulli at the University of Missouri (2021) after an extreme alcohol hazing event left him unable to walk, talk, or see. His family settled lawsuits with 22 defendants, including the fraternity, reportedly for multi-million-dollar amounts.
  • Impact: This case is a chilling example of non-fatal but life-altering hazing, and demonstrates the extensive liability when organizations fail to prevent such events.
• Kappa Sigma (ΚΣ):
  • Local Presence: Chapters at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, and Baylor.
  • National History: Kappa Sigma has also faced significant legal battles. The Chad Meredith case at the University of Miami (2001) resulted in a $12.6 million jury verdict after Meredith drowned during a hazing incident, highlighting physical hazing dangers. More recently, a $10M+ settlement was achieved in a Sigma Chi case at the College of Charleston in 2024 (a different fraternity but similar dynamic) involving physical beatings and forced consumption of drugs/alcohol.
  • Impact: These cases demonstrate the massive liability associated with physical and alcohol-related hazing, giving a clear warning to Kappa Sigma chapters in Texas.

Tie Back to Legal Strategy

For Winkler County families, these national and campus-specific patterns are more than just sad stories; they are crucial elements in a legal strategy.

• Foreseeability: When an organization has a documented history of certain types of hazing (e.g., forced alcohol consumption) across multiple chapters nationwide, it is very difficult for them to argue that a similar incident at a Texas chapter was “unforeseeable.” This directly supports claims of negligence against national organizations and universities.
• Institutional Indifference: Courts can consider whether national organizations, and even universities, have:
  • Meaningfully enforced their anti-hazing policies, or if they were merely “paper policies.”
  • Responded to prior incidents aggressively enough (e.g., permanent closure vs. temporary suspension).
  • Ignored red flags or reports of hazing.
• Settlement and Damages: This pattern evidence can dramatically increase a victim’s leverage in settlement negotiations and support arguments for higher damages, including punitive damages, which are intended to punish defendants for egregious conduct and deter future harm. It also plays a key role in navigating complex insurance coverage disputes, as insurers often try to deny coverage based on “intentional acts.” Attorney911’s Lupe Peña, with her background as an insurance defense attorney, offers an invaluable insider perspective on these exact defense tactics.

Building a Case: Evidence, Damages, Strategy

Successfully pursuing a hazing lawsuit requires a meticulous, aggressive, and highly specialized approach. It’s not enough to simply claim hazing occurred; you must prove it with compelling evidence and clearly articulate the damages suffered. For Winkler County families, this means understanding the intricate process of building a strong case.

Evidence

Modern hazing cases are won or lost on the quality and quantity of evidence. In an age of pervasive digital communication, evidence is rapidly created and just as rapidly destroyed. Our firm approaches hazing investigations with the same rigor we apply to complex cases like the BP Texas City explosion litigation.

• Digital Communications: This is often the most critical piece of evidence.
  • GroupMe, WhatsApp, iMessage, Discord, Snapchat, Instagram DMs, Slack, and fraternity-specific apps are where hazing is planned, executed, and documented. Messages may contain explicit instructions for hazing, threats, evidence of cover-ups, or even videos/photos taken during events.
  • Screenshots are vital, capturing full conversations with timestamps and participant names. If auto-deleting apps are used, real-time screen recording can be essential. If messages have been deleted, sophisticated digital forensics can often recover them.
• Photos & Videos: From cell phones to security cameras, visual evidence paints a powerful picture.
  • Content filmed by members during hazing events, often shared in private group chats or on social media, can directly confirm the allegations.
  • Dashcam, doorbell cameras (Ring), or venue surveillance footage can establish presence, activities, or the condition of individuals before/after events.
  • Photos of injuries (bruises, burns, cuts), taken immediately and over several days to show progression, are essential medical evidence.
• Internal Organization Documents: These can reveal a culture of hazing or knowledge at higher levels.
  • Pledge manuals, initiation scripts, “tradition” documents, or internal communications mentioning “what we’ll do to pledges” can offer direct proof of planning.
  • Subpoenaing national organization policies, risk management files, and records of prior incidents at other chapters nationwide demonstrates foreseeability and a pattern of behavior.
• University Records: Universities often possess crucial evidence.
  • Prior conduct files related to the specific organization or individuals, including probation, suspensions, or warning letters, show a history and prior knowledge.
  • Incident reports filed with campus police or student conduct offices, especially those that were allegedly downplayed or ignored.
  • Clery Act reports and other public disclosures, particularly for public universities like UH, Texas A&M, and UT Austin, can reveal patterns of campus safety issues.
• Medical and Psychological Records: These document the full extent of the harm.
  • Emergency room and hospitalization records provide immediate proof of injury, intoxication levels, and initial medical diagnoses.
  • Toxicology reports for drug/alcohol presence.
  • Specialist reports from surgeons, physical therapists, neurologists, and psychological evaluations for PTSD, depression, anxiety, or suicidal ideation. Documenting mental health struggles is critical as they represent significant, often long-lasting, damages.
• Witness Testimony: Eyewitness accounts are invaluable.
  • Other pledges, former members, or even current members who are remorseful or fearful of retaliation can provide crucial testimony.
  • Roommates, RAs, coaches, trainers, and bystanders who observed changes in behavior or witnessed parts of the incident.
  • Emergency responders (EMTs, hospital staff) who saw the immediate aftermath and the condition of the victim.

Damages

The goal of a civil hazing lawsuit is to recover compensation for the full spectrum of damages incurred by the victim and their family. This includes not just easily quantifiable expenses but also profound non-economic harms.

• Medical Bills & Future Care: This covers all expenses related to the physical injuries and their treatment, both past and future. This includes ambulance services, emergency room visits, hospitalization, surgeries, medications, ongoing physical and occupational therapy, specialist consultations, and long-term care plans for catastrophic injuries (e.g., traumatic brain injuries, organ damage).
• Lost Earnings / Educational Impact: Hazing can severely disrupt a student’s academic and future professional life.
  • This includes tuition and fees for missed semesters, lost scholarships, and the costs associated with transferring to a different institution.
  • For students who suffer permanent injuries, it can include the loss of earning capacity, calculated by expert economists over their lifetime.
• Non-Economic Damages: These compensate for subjective but very real harms, often constituting a significant portion of settlements and verdicts.
  • Physical Pain and Suffering: For the immediate and ongoing pain from physical injuries, surgeries, and recovery.
  • Emotional Distress, Trauma, and Humiliation: This includes damages for diagnosed conditions like PTSD, depression, and anxiety, as well as the profound psychological impact of public shaming, fear, and loss of dignity.
  • Loss of Enjoyment of Life: When a student can no longer participate in activities they once loved (sports, hobbies, social life), experiences withdrawal from college, or sees their relationships damaged due to the hazing’s impact.
• Wrongful Death Damages (for Families): If hazing results in a fatality, the surviving family members can pursue a wrongful death claim in Texas. This includes:
  • Funeral and burial costs.
  • Loss of financial support (if the deceased would have contributed to family income or support for parents/siblings).
  • Loss of companionship, love, comfort, and society suffered by parents, children, and spouses.
  • Grief and emotional suffering of the surviving family members, and the costs of their mental health treatment.

While we discuss these categories of damages, it is imperative to understand that we are describing types of potential recovery and not promising or guaranteeing specific dollar amounts for any case. Every outcome is based on the specific evidence and legal arguments.

Role of Different Defendants and Insurance Coverage

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

• Insurance Coverage: National fraternities, local chapters, and universities typically have substantial insurance policies designed to cover liability for personal injuries. However, insurers often employ aggressive tactics to deny coverage, arguing that hazing or “intentional acts” are excluded from their policies.
• Navigating Insurance Disputes: This is where experienced hazing attorneys excel. They know how to identify all potential sources of insurance coverage (e.g., general liability, directors and officers, umbrella policies, even homeowners’ policies for individuals). They understand how to argue that even if hazing was “intentional,” the organization’s negligent supervision or failure to prevent foreseeable harm should still be covered. Our firm’s Lupe Peña, with her background as an insurance defense attorney, brings an invaluable insider perspective to these coverage disputes, knowing precisely how to counter the tactics employed by insurers seeking to deny claims.

Our strategy is to identify all liable parties, exhaust all avenues for evidence, and build a case that forces accountability—whether through settlement negotiations to compensate our clients fairly or by taking the case to trial to achieve justice.

Practical Guides & FAQs

For Winkler County families navigating this frightening landscape, timely and accurate information is empowering. Here, we offer practical advice for parents, students, and even former members or witnesses.

For Parents: Recognizing & Responding to Hazing

Parents are often the first line of defense, but knowing what to look for and how to respond can be difficult.

• Warning Signs of Hazing:
  • Unexplained Injuries: Bruises, burns, cuts, or repeated “accidents” that don’t add up.
  • Extreme Fatigue: Sudden, severe exhaustion, sleep deprivation, or constant late nights.
  • Drastic Mood Changes: Increased anxiety, depression, irritability, withdrawal from usual activities, or defensiveness when asked about their organization.
  • Secretive Behavior: Refusal to discuss activities, frequent use of code words, or sudden fear of “getting the chapter shut down.”
  • Constant Phone Use: Especially for group chats that demand immediate responses at all hours, causing anxiety.
  • Academic Decline: A sudden, unexplained drop in grades, missing classes, or failing to submit assignments due to “mandatory” events.
  • Unusual Illness: Flu-like symptoms, rhabdomyolysis (muscle breakdown), or digestive issues.
• 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 anything making you uncomfortable?” Emphasize their safety and well-being over loyalty to a group. Assure them you will support them no matter what.
• If Your Child Is Hurt: Seek medical attention immediately. Document everything visually (photos of injuries) and in writing (what they tell you, dates, times). Save any digital evidence they have.
• Dealing with the University: Document all communications with university administrators. Ask specific questions about any prior incidents involving the organization and the university’s response. Understand that the university’s internal process is aimed at its own policies, not necessarily your legal rights.
• 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 what happened, contact an experienced hazing attorney.

For Students / Pledges: Self-Assessment & Safety Planning

If you are a student or pledge in Winkler County, or anywhere in Texas, and you are questioning the activities you’re being asked to do, trust your gut.

• 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? Is this dangerous, degrading, or illegal? Would the university or my parents approve if they knew exactly what was happening? If it involves secrecy, humiliation, danger, or coercion, it is hazing—regardless of what it’s called.
• Why “Consent” Isn’t the End of the Story: You might feel like you “consented” or “agreed” to these activities. However, true consent cannot exist under pressure, fear of exclusion, or unequal power dynamics. Under Texas law, consent is explicitly not a defense to hazing. You are the victim, not an accomplice.
• Exiting and Reporting Safely: You have the legal right to leave any organization at any time. If you feel unsafe, remove yourself immediately and contact a trusted adult (parent, RA, trusted professor) or law enforcement. If you fear retaliation, report that fear along with the hazing incident. Many schools and laws provide amnesty for students who report hazing, especially in emergencies.
• Good-Faith Reporting and Amnesty: Be aware that in Texas, there are protections for individuals who report hazing in good faith, providing general immunity from criminal or civil liability for the act of reporting itself. Additionally, many universities and state laws have “Good Samaritan” provisions, encouraging students to call 911 in an emergency (like alcohol poisoning) without fear of being disciplined for underage drinking.

For Former Members / Witnesses: A Path to Accountability

If you were once part of a hazing incident, either as a participant or a witness, you might carry a heavy burden of guilt, regret, or fear of repercussions.

• Your Role in Accountability: Your testimony and evidence can be pivotal in preventing future harm and saving lives. Coming forward can be a critical step toward holding those truly responsible accountable.
• Seeking Legal Advice: If you have participated in hazing, you may have legal exposure (criminal or civil). It is crucial to seek your own legal advice from an attorney who can advise you on your rights and help you navigate the process of cooperating with authorities or victims’ families. Lawyers can help protect you while you help deliver justice.

Critical Mistakes That Can Destroy Your Hazing Case

Hazing cases are incredibly delicate, and critical errors in the initial hours and days can severely undermine your ability to seek justice. Winkler County families should be aware of these common, irreversible mistakes:

1. Letting your child delete messages or “clean up” evidence:
   • Why it’s wrong: Deleting pivotal group chats, photos, or videos looks like a cover-up, can be considered obstruction of justice, and makes proving your case nearly impossible. Digital evidence is the backbone of most modern hazing lawsuits.
   • What to do instead: Preserve everything immediately, even content your child finds embarrassing. Screenshot full conversations with timestamps and participants. If you can, upload it to a secure cloud server or email it to yourself for safekeeping.
2. Confronting the fraternity/sorority directly:
   • Why it’s wrong: While your anger is understandable, directly confronting the organization will prompt them to immediately lawyer up, destroy evidence, coach witnesses on what to say, and start preparing their defense. You will lose the element of surprise and critical evidence.
   • What to do instead: Document everything privately first. Then, involve an experienced hazing lawyer before any communication with the organization.
3. Signing university “release” or “resolution” forms without legal review:
   • Why it’s wrong: Universities are institutions with their own legal counsel. They may pressure families to sign waivers or internal “resolution” agreements. These documents often require you to waive your right to sue the university, and any settlements offered are typically far below the true value of your case.
   • What to do instead: Do NOT sign anything from the university or its representatives without an attorney reviewing it first. Your lawyer can advise you on the implications and protect your ability to pursue full compensation.
4. Posting details on social media before talking to a lawyer:
   • Why it’s wrong: While sharing your story is powerful, anything posted publicly will be screenshot by defense attorneys and used against you. Inconsistencies in your story, or emotional descriptions, can hurt your credibility. It can also inadvertently waive legal privileges.
   • What to do instead: Document your child’s experience privately. Let your attorney guide the strategy for any public statements to ensure it helps, not harms, your case.
5. Letting your child go back to “one last meeting” or “talk it out”:
   • Why it’s wrong: The organization may attempt to pressure, intimidate, or extract statements from your child that undermine a potential legal claim. These are often attempts at damage control by the group, not genuine reconciliation.
   • What to do instead: If you are considering legal action, all communication from or to the organization—or the university’s Greek Life office—should go through your lawyer.
6. Waiting “to see how the university handles it”:
   • Why it’s wrong: While university investigations are important for internal discipline, they are not designed to protect your legal rights or secure full civil compensation. Evidence fades, witnesses graduate, and organizations can clean up their act while you wait. The statute of limitations in Texas for personal injury and wrongful death cases is generally two years, and waiting too long can mean you lose your right to sue.
   • What to do instead: Preserve evidence NOW. Consult a hazing lawyer immediately. Let the university conduct its investigation, but proceed with your own legal strategy simultaneously.
7. Talking to insurance adjusters without a lawyer:
   • Why it’s wrong: Insurance adjusters for the fraternity, national organization, or university are not on your side. Their goal is to pay as little as possible. They will try to get recorded statements or offers that undervalue your claim and could be used against you.
   • What to do instead: Politely decline to speak with any insurance adjuster directly. State that your attorney will contact them.

Short FAQ

• “Can I sue a university for hazing in Texas?”
  Yes, under certain circumstances. Public universities like UH, Texas A&M, and UT Austin benefit from some sovereign immunity under Texas law, but exceptions exist for gross negligence, willful misconduct, and certain Title IX violations. Private universities like SMU and 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 typically a Class B misdemeanor, it becomes a state jail felony under Texas law if the act causes serious bodily injury or death. Individuals who fail to report hazing or retaliate against reporters can also face misdemeanor 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 charges or a civil hazing claim. Courts and juries understand that “consent” given under severe peer pressure, power imbalance, or fear of exclusion is not true voluntary consent.
• “How long do we have to file a hazing lawsuit?”
  Generally, you have 2 years from the date of injury or death to file a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit 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 of limitations may be tolled (paused). Time is critical—evidence disappears, witnesses graduate, and organizations work to suppress information. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 immediately to protect your rights. Our video, “Is There a Statute of Limitations on My Case?”, provides more details at 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/sororities can still be held liable based on their sponsorship, control, knowledge of the activities, and the foreseeability of the harm. Many major hazing cases that resulted in multi-million-dollar judgments, such as the Pi Delta Psi retreat case or cases involving “unofficial” fraternity houses, occurred off-campus.
• “Will this be confidential, or will my child’s name be in the news?”
  Many hazing cases are resolved through confidential settlements before going to public trial. We work with families to request sealed court records and negotiate confidential settlement terms whenever possible, prioritizing your family’s privacy while still seeking full accountability. Our goal is to achieve justice without unnecessarily exposing your child to public scrutiny.

About The Manginello Law Firm + Call to Action

When your family faces a hazing incident, you need more than a general personal injury lawyer. You need attorneys who intimately understand how powerful institutions—national fraternities, wealthy universities—fight back, and how to effectively navigate complex legal battles to win. That’s why The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC, operating as Attorney911, stands ready to serve Winkler County families.

We are a Houston-based Texas personal injury firm with deep experience in serious injury, wrongful death, and institutional accountability cases. Our expertise is specifically tailored for the unique challenges of hazing litigation:

• Insurance Insider Advantage: Our associate attorney, Lupe Peña, brings invaluable experience as a former insurance defense attorney at a national firm. She knows precisely how fraternity and university insurance companies value (and often undervalue) hazing claims, their delay tactics, their coverage exclusion arguments, and their settlement strategies. We know their playbook because we used to run it. Lupe Peña’s full background is available at https://attorney911.com/attorneys/lupe-pena/.
• Complex Litigation Against Massive Institutions: Ralph Manginello, our managing partner, has proven his ability to take on and win against formidable opponents. He was one of the few Texas firms involved in the BP Texas City explosion litigation, a federal case involving a billion-dollar catastrophe. His experience in federal court (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas) means we are not intimidated by national fraternities, universities, or their well-funded defense teams. We’ve taken on powerful corporate defendants and won. Ralph Manginello’s complete credentials are detailed at https://attorney911.com/attorneys/ralph-manginello/.
• Multi-Million Dollar Wrongful Death and Catastrophic Injury Experience: We have a proven track record in complex wrongful death cases, working with economists to value the full impact of a life lost. We understand how to build cases that account for lifetime care needs in catastrophic injury cases, like those involving traumatic brain injuries or permanent disabilities. We don’t settle cheap; we build cases that force genuine accountability. Learn more about our wrongful death practice at https://attorney911.com/law-practice-areas/wrongful-death-claim-lawyer/.
• Criminal + Civil Hazing Expertise: Ralph’s membership in the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association (HCCLA) demonstrates his deep understanding of criminal law. This means we are uniquely positioned to advise on how criminal hazing charges interact with civil litigation and how to navigate scenarios where students or witnesses may face dual criminal and civil exposure. Our criminal defense experience is important in these nuanced hazing cases; see https://attorney911.com/law-practice-areas/criminal-defense-lawyers/.
• Investigative Depth: We investigate hazing incidents with the same meticulousness as major industrial accidents. Our network of experts includes legal specialists in digital forensics who can recover deleted group chats and social media evidence, medical experts to document injuries, and psychologists to assess long-term trauma. We know how to subpoena national fraternity records showing patterns of prior incidents and uncover university files through coordinated discovery and public records requests. We investigate like your child’s life depends on it—because it does.

We understand how fraternities, sororities, Corps programs, and athletic departments actually work behind closed doors. This cultural insight, combined with our legal acumen, is vital in proving coercion in cases where defendants might claim “consent.” Above all, we approach these cases with profound empathy and a commitment to victim advocacy. We know this is one of the hardest things a family can ever face. Our job is to get you answers, hold the responsible parties accountable, and work tirelessly to help prevent this from happening to another family. We focus on thorough investigation and real accountability, not quick settlements.

Call to Action

If your child, whether from Winkler County or elsewhere in Texas, has experienced hazing at any Texas campus—be it UH in Houston, Texas A&M in College Station, UT Austin, SMU in Dallas, Baylor in Waco, or any other institution—we want to hear from you. Families in Winkler County and throughout the surrounding region have the right to answers, justice, and accountability.

Contact The Manginello Law Firm for a confidential, no-obligation consultation. We’ll listen to what happened, explain your legal options transparently, and help you decide on the best path forward for your family. There is no pressure to hire us on the spot; our priority is to provide you with clear information.

In your free consultation, you can expect us to:

• Listen to your story without judgment, understanding the pain and confusion you’re experiencing.
• Review any evidence you’ve gathered, such as photos, texts, or medical records.
• Explain your legal options, including a criminal report, a civil lawsuit, or both, and discuss what each path entails.
• Outline realistic timelines and what you can expect during the legal process.
• Answer your questions about costs. We work on a contingency fee basis, which means we don’t get paid unless we win your case. Our video, “How Do Contingency Fees Work?”, explains this in detail at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upcI_j6F7Nc.
• Provide you with valuable initial guidance, such as avoiding critical mistakes that can ruin your case. Watch our video, “Client Mistakes That Can Ruin Your Injury Case,” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3IYsoxOSxY for essential tips.

Contact Us Today:

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

Hablamos Español – Our team includes attorney Lupe Peña, who is fluent in Spanish. Please feel free to contact her directly at lupe@atty911.com for consultation in Spanish. Servicios legales en español disponibles.

Reading this article provides comprehensive information but does not create an attorney–client relationship. Every hazing 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. Whether you’re in Winkler County, Houston, or anywhere across Texas, if hazing has impacted your family, you don’t have to face this alone. Call us today.

Legal Disclaimer

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

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

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

The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC / Attorney911
Houston, Austin, and Beaumont, Texas
Call: 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911)
Direct: (713) 528-9070 | Cell: (713) 443-4781
Website: https://attorney911.com
Email: ralph@atty91com