Texas Hazing Laws: A Comprehensive Guide for Loving County Families

One quiet evening in Loving County, a family receives a call that shatters their peace. Their child, a bright, hopeful student at Texas A&M, has been hospitalized with severe alcohol poisoning after a fraternity “initiation event.” The details are murky, the university is slow to respond, and a cloud of fear and confusion descends. This nightmare scenario, all too common across Texas campuses, could easily happen to a family from Loving County, a community where young Texans often head off to universities across the state with dreams and ambitions.

This guide is designed for families in Loving County and across Texas who find themselves grappling with the devastating impacts of hazing. We delve into what hazing truly looks like in 2025, how Texas and federal laws address it, the crucial lessons from major national incidents, and what has been happening at prominent Texas institutions like the University of Houston (UH), Texas A&M University, the University of Texas at Austin (UT), Southern Methodist University (SMU), and Baylor University. Most importantly, we outline the legal options available to victims and families throughout Texas who seek justice and accountability.

This article provides general information and is not specific legal advice. The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC, is a Houston-based Texas personal injury firm with deep expertise in hazing litigation, and we serve families throughout Texas, including Loving County. We understand the profound isolation and helplessness families feel when a loved one is harmed by hazing, and we are here to help you navigate these challenging circumstances.

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, and direct messages 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

For Loving County families unfamiliar with the evolving landscape of group initiation rituals, hazing in 2025 extends far beyond the misinformed clichés of “just a bit of fun” or “harmless pranks.” Modern hazing is characterized by sophistication, technological integration, and a deliberate effort to skirt official rules while maintaining traditions rooted in power, dominance, and secrecy. It involves any forced, coerced, or strongly pressured action tied to joining, keeping membership, or gaining status in a group, where the behavior endangers physical or mental health, humiliates, or exploits. It’s crucial to understand that saying “I agreed to it” does not automatically make the activity safe or legal, especially when peer pressure and power imbalances are at play.

Clear, Modern Definition of Hazing

At its core, hazing is about control and manipulation. It’s an abuse of power designed to create a sense of belonging through shared hardship, often at the expense of an individual’s dignity, safety, and well-being. This can be inflicted by older members on new members, but also by peers within an organization. The coercive nature of hazing means that “consent” is often illusory; pledges or new members feel they have no real choice but to participate if they want to be accepted into the group.

Main Categories of Hazing

Hazing manifests in many forms, often escalating from subtle psychological manipulation to life-threatening physical abuse.

• Alcohol and Substance Hazing: This is arguably the most dangerous and deadly form of hazing today. It involves forcing or strongly coercing individuals to consume dangerous amounts of alcohol or other substances. Examples include:

  • Chugging challenges or “lineups” where multiple drinks must be consumed rapidly.
  • “Big/Little” events where pledges are given entire bottles or “handles” of hard liquor.
  • So-called “drinking games” where incorrect answers or failures result in forced alcohol consumption, such as the “Bible study” game in the Max Gruver case.
  • Pressure to consume unknown or mixed substances, potentially leading to overdose or severe adverse reactions.

• Physical Hazing: This category directly endangers the body, ranging from strenuous activities to outright beatings.

  • Paddling and beatings: This traditional form of physical abuse continues, often in secret, using wooden paddles or hands.
  • Extreme calisthenics, “workouts,” or “smokings”: Forced strenuous exercise far beyond safe limits or without proper rest, leading to exhaustion, injury, or conditions like rhabdomyolysis.
  • Sleep deprivation: Mandatory late-night activities, early morning wake-ups, or multi-day events with minimal sleep, severely impacting physical and mental health.
  • Food/water deprivation: Denying access to adequate nutrition or hydration, or forcing the consumption of unpleasant or excessive amounts of food/liquids.
  • Exposure to extreme cold/heat or dangerous environments: Forcing individuals to remain in harsh weather conditions, unsafe locations, or without appropriate clothing.

• Sexualized and Humiliating Hazing: This type of hazing aims to strip individuals of their dignity and autonomy, often crossing into sexual assault.

  • Forced nudity or partial nudity: Requiring individuals to undress or perform sexually suggestive acts in front of others.
  • Simulated sexual acts: Forcing participants into degrading poses, mimicking sexual acts, or participating in rituals like “roasted pig” positions.
  • Acts with racial, homophobic, or sexist overtones: Targeted harassment based on identity, forcing individuals to endure slurs, degrading role-play, or stereotypes.
  • Public shaming: Forced participation in embarrassing acts in public or private settings, designed to ridicule.

• Psychological Hazing: Often overlooked but deeply damaging, this category impacts mental and emotional well-being.

  • Verbal abuse, threats, and intimidation: Constant yelling, insults, derogatory names, and threats of social exclusion or physical harm.
  • Isolation and manipulation: Cutting individuals off from outside support systems, controlling their communication, or using mind games to break down their will.
  • Forced confessions or self-incrimination: Pressuring individuals to reveal personal secrets or admit to wrongdoings, then using that information against them.

• Digital/Online Hazing: With the rise of technology, hazing has moved into the digital realm, allowing for 24/7 access and new forms of abuse.

  • Group chat dares and “challenges”: Forcing individuals to complete humiliating tasks, often recorded and shared.
  • Public humiliation via social media: Requiring individuals to post embarrassing content on Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, or Discord, or face consequences.
  • Pressure to create or share compromising images/videos: Blackmail or coercion using digital content.
  • Constant digital monitoring: Requiring pledges to share live location, respond instantly to messages, or face punishment for non-compliance.

Where Hazing Actually Happens

Hazing is not confined to one type of organization or campus group. It’s a pervasive problem that can occur in any setting where a power dynamic exists and individuals seek to gain acceptance.

• Fraternities and Sororities: This is the most commonly recognized context for hazing across all councils (Interfraternity Council (IFC), Panhellenic, National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC), and multicultural Greek organizations) at universities like the University of Houston, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor.
• Corps of Cadets/ROTC/Military-Style Groups: Organizations like the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets, with their tradition-heavy, military-style environments, have unfortunately also seen documented incidents of hazing, often disguised as “discipline” or “tradition.”
• Spirit Squads, Tradition Clubs, and Student Organizations: Groups such as the University of Texas’s former Texas Cowboys or various spirit organizations, as well as cultural, service, and academic clubs, have all faced hazing allegations.
• Athletic Teams: From football and basketball to baseball, cheerleading, and swimming, hazing has been reported across a wide range of collegiate athletic teams, as highlighted by the Northwestern University football scandal.
• Marching Bands and Performance Groups: Even seemingly harmless organizations like marching bands, as seen in the tragic case of Robert Champion at Florida A&M University, can be breeding grounds for brutal hazing rituals.

These practices persist because of a complex interplay of social status, deeply ingrained traditions, and an intense code of secrecy. New members are often told that “everyone went through it” and that the hardship makes the bonds stronger. This culture of silence protects perpetrators and perpetuates a harmful cycle, even when everyone “knows” hazing is illegal and dangerous.

Law & Liability Framework (Texas + Federal)

Understanding the legal landscape surrounding hazing in Texas is critical for Loving County families who may be seeking justice. Both state and federal laws provide avenues for accountability, offering mechanisms for criminal prosecution and civil recourse.

Texas Hazing Law Basics (Education Code)

Texas has clear, specific anti-hazing provisions outlined in the Texas Education Code, Chapter 37, Subchapter F. These laws are designed to protect students and hold individuals and organizations accountable for harmful initiation practices.

Hazing is broadly defined in Section 37.151 as any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, committed by one person alone or with others, directed against a student, that:

• Endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student, or
• 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 clarifies several crucial points:

• Location is irrelevant: Hazing can happen on or off campus; the university’s property lines do not define the scope of the law.
• Harm can be physical or mental: The law recognizes that psychological and emotional abuse can be as damaging as physical harm.
• Intent doesn’t require malice: An act is hazing if it’s intentional, knowing, or even reckless. This means if someone knew the risk of harm but proceeded anyway, it can be considered hazing under Texas law.
• “Consent” is not a defense: As explicitly stated in Section 37.155, even if the student being hazed “agreed” to the activity, it is still hazing if it meets the definition. This is a critical protection for young people caught in coercive environments.

Criminal Penalties: Hazing can lead to serious criminal charges in Texas, as outlined in Section 37.152:

• Class B Misdemeanor (default): For hazing that does not cause serious injury (punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine up to $2,000).
• Class A Misdemeanor: If the hazing causes bodily injury requiring medical treatment.
• State Jail Felony: If the hazing causes serious bodily injury or death. This is a critical provision that ensures severe hazing has severe consequences, impacting individuals and their futures.

Furthermore, Texas law also makes it a misdemeanor for individuals (including members or officers of organizations) to fail to report hazing if they knew about it, and for anyone to retaliate against someone who reports hazing.

Organizational Liability: Section 37.153 holds organizations (fraternities, soror clubs, teams) criminally liable if they:

• Authorized or encouraged the hazing, or
• If an officer or member acting in their official capacity knew about hazing and failed to report it.
  Organizations found guilty can face fines up to $10,000 per violation and may have their recognition revoked by the university.

Reporter Protections: Section 37.154 provides immunity for individuals who in good faith report a hazing incident to university authorities or law enforcement from civil or criminal liability stemming from that report. Texas law and many university policies also extend amnesty to students who call 911 in a medical emergency, even if underage drinking or other minor offenses were involved. These protections are designed to encourage reporting and seeking help, prioritizing safety over punishment for minor infractions.

Criminal vs. Civil Cases

It’s essential for Loving County families to understand the distinct roles of criminal and civil legal actions in hazing cases. While they can arise from the same incident, they serve different purposes and have different thresholds for proof.

• Criminal Cases: These are brought by the state (prosecutors) against individuals or organizations accused of violating criminal statutes. The primary aim is punishment, which can include fines, jail time, or probation. In hazing contexts, criminal charges can encompass not only direct hazing offenses but also related crimes such as furnishing alcohol to minors, assault, battery, or even manslaughter or negligent homicide in fatal incidents. The burden of proof in criminal cases is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a high standard.
• Civil Cases: These are initiated by victims or their surviving families against individuals and entities responsible for the harm. The goal of a civil lawsuit is monetary compensation (damages) and accountability for the injuries and losses suffered. Civil cases typically focus on legal theories like negligence (failure to act responsibly), gross negligence (reckless disregard for safety), wrongful death, negligent hiring/supervision, premises liability, and emotional distress. The burden of proof in civil cases is generally “a preponderance of the evidence” (more likely than not), which is a lower standard than in criminal cases.

Importantly, a criminal conviction is not required to pursue a civil case. Many civil hazing lawsuits proceed successfully even when criminal charges are dropped or result in acquittals, because the legal standards and objectives are different. Both types of cases can run concurrently, allowing for both public justice and victim compensation.

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

Beyond state laws, federal regulations also impact how hazing is addressed on college campuses, particularly those receiving federal funding.

• Stop Campus Hazing Act (2024): This landmark federal legislation mandates that colleges and universities receiving federal student aid must report hazing incidents with greater transparency, strengthen their hazing education and prevention efforts, and maintain publicly accessible data on hazing violations. This act, being phased in by approximately 2026, aims to improve accountability and provide prospective students and parents with clearer information about hazing on campuses nationwide.
• Title IX: When hazing involves sex discrimination, sexual harassment, or gender-based hostility (including forced sexual acts or gender-based ridicule), Title IX obligations are triggered. This federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity, requiring universities to investigate and address such misconduct.
• Clery Act: The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act mandates that colleges and universities disclose information about crime on and around their campuses. While not exclusively a hazing law, hazing incidents often overlap with categories reported under Clery when they involve assaults, alcohol-related offenses, or other serious crimes.

Who Can Be Liable in a Civil Hazing Lawsuit

In a civil hazing lawsuit, a variety of individuals and entities can be held legally accountable for injuries and damages:

• Individual Students: Those who actively planned, enforced, supplied illegal substances, or participated in the hazing acts can be held personally liable. This includes the “pledge educators,” chapter officers, and any member directly involved.
• Local Chapter/Organization: The fraternity, sorority, club, or team itself, if it is structured as a legal entity, can be sued. In many cases, the local chapter is the direct perpetrator of the hazing.
• National Fraternity/Sorority: The national headquarters (e.g., Pi Kappa Alpha National, Sigma Alpha Epsilon National) can be held liable, especially if there’s a demonstrable pattern of hazing across its chapters, if it failed to adequately train or supervise its local chapters, or if it had knowledge of previous incidents and failed to intervene effectively. Their liability often hinges on foreseeability—what they knew or should have known about hazing within their organization.
• University or Governing Board: The educational institution itself, including its administrators, deans, and oversight boards, can be sued for negligence, gross negligence, or deliberate indifference. Key questions include whether the university had prior warnings about hazing within an organization, if it failed to enforce its own policies, or if it negligently supervised or advised student groups. For public universities (like UH, Texas A&M, UT), sovereign immunity under Texas law can complicate lawsuits, but exceptions exist for gross negligence or willful misconduct, and for cases brought under federal laws like Title IX. Private universities (like SMU, Baylor) generally have fewer immunity protections.
• Third Parties: Other entities can also be implicated:
  • Property Owners/Landlords: Owners of off-campus houses or event spaces where hazing occurred, particularly if they knew or should have known about dangerous activities on their property.
  • Bars or Alcohol Providers: Under Texas dram shop laws, establishments that negligently serve alcohol to minors or obviously intoxicated individuals who then cause harm can be held liable.
  • Security Companies or Event Organizers: If their negligence contributed to the unsafe environment.

Every hazing case is fact-specific, and the potential defendants and legal theories will vary based on the unique circumstances of each incident. An experienced hazing attorney can identify all potentially liable parties and build a comprehensive case.

National Hazing Case Patterns (Anchor Stories)

The landscape of hazing litigation has been powerfully shaped by a series of tragic incidents that galvanized public attention, prompted legislative action, and set critical legal precedents. These anchor stories demonstrate recurring patterns and underscore the immense stakes for victims, families, and the organizations involved. For Loving County families, understanding these national cases reveals how courts and juries approach hazing, and why the lessons learned apply directly to any Texas university.

Alcohol Poisoning & Death Pattern

Forced alcohol consumption continues to be the most prevalent and lethal form of hazing, leading to multiple tragic deaths nationwide. These cases often share common threads: extreme intoxication, delays in seeking medical help, and a pervasive culture of silence and cover-up.

• Timothy Piazza – Penn State University, Beta Theta Pi (2017): In one of the most high-profile hazing cases in U.S. history, 19-year-old Timothy Piazza died after a “bid acceptance” event where he was forced to consume massive amounts of alcohol. Fraternity security cameras captured his agonizing fall down stairs and the subsequent hours-long delay in calling for medical assistance, as members debated contacting authorities to avoid “getting the chapter shut down.” This led to dozens of criminal charges against fraternity members, extensive civil litigation, and the enactment of the Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing Law in Pennsylvania, a felony hazing statute. The case underscored how extreme intoxication, deliberate delay in calling 911, and a culture of cover-up can be legally devastating for individuals and organizations alike.
• 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. He was reportedly given a “handle” (1.75 liters) of hard liquor and completed dangerous drinking rituals. The incident resulted in criminal hazing charges against multiple fraternity members, and Florida State University temporarily suspended all Greek life, overhauling its hazing prevention policies. This case tragically exemplified how formulaic “tradition” drinking nights are a repeating script for disaster within Greek life.
• Maxwell “Max” Gruver – Louisiana State University, Phi Delta Theta (2017): Max Gruver, an 18-year-old LSU pledge, died with a blood alcohol level exceeding 0.495% after participating in a “Bible study” drinking game. Pledges were forced to drink whenever they answered questions incorrectly. The tragedy led to convictions for negligent homicide and hazing against fraternity members. More significantly, it spurred Louisiana to pass the Max Gruver Act, a felony hazing statute that made it easier to prosecute severe hazing incidents. This case powerfully illustrates how public outrage and clear proof of hazing often drive meaningful legislative change.
• Stone Foltz – Bowling Green State University, Pi Kappa Alpha (2021): During a fraternity pledge night, 20-year-old Stone Foltz was allegedly forced to consume an entire bottle of whiskey, dying from alcohol poisoning. The incident resulted in multiple criminal convictions against fraternity members for hazing and other offenses. Civil litigation led to a significant $10 million settlement in 2023, with approximately $7 million from Pi Kappa Alpha national and nearly $3 million from Bowling Green State University. This case demonstrated that universities, even public ones, can face substantial financial and reputational consequences alongside the fraternities themselves.

Physical & Ritualized Hazing Pattern

Beyond alcohol, physical and ritualized hazing, often cloaked in claims of “tradition,” also leads to severe injury and death.

• Chun “Michael” Deng – Baruch College, Pi Delta Psi (2013): Michael Deng, a pledge at Baruch College, died from a traumatic brain injury suffered during a fraternity retreat in the Pocono Mountains. He was blindfolded, forced to wear a weighted backpack, and repeatedly tackled in a brutal ritual known as the “glass ceiling.” Fraternity members delayed calling for help for hours. Multiple members were convicted, and the national Pi Delta Psi fraternity was criminally convicted of aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter, and effectively banned from Pennsylvania for a decade. This landmark case highlighted that off-campus “retreats” are often chosen to evade oversight and can be as dangerous or worse than on-campus events, and that national organizations carry significant liability for their chapters’ conduct.

Athletic Program Hazing & Abuse

Hazing is not confined to Greek letter organizations. Athletic teams across the country have also been sites of systemic abuse.

• Northwestern University Football (2023–2025): In a scandal that rocked collegiate athletics, former Northwestern football players alleged widespread sexualized and racist hazing within the program over multiple years. Hazing tactics reportedly included forced sexual acts, racial slurs, and physical abuse. This led to the firing of long-time head coach Pat Fitzgerald, who later settled a wrongful-termination lawsuit confidentially with the university. Multiple players filed lawsuits against Northwestern and various coaching staff. This case brought critical attention to the fact that hazing is a pervasive issue extending far beyond Greek life, often deeply embedded within major athletic programs, and raised serious questions about institutional oversight and accountability.

What These Cases Mean for Texas Families

These national tragedies share common threads: forced drinking, physical abuse, psychological torment, deliberate delays in seeking medical care, and concerted efforts to cover up incidents. They reveal how deeply ingrained hazing can be, and how powerfully it is protected by a code of silence.

Crucially, these cases also demonstrate that meaningful reforms, legislative changes, and multi-million-dollar settlements or verdicts often follow only after such tragedies and determined litigation. They show that accountability against powerful institutions and national organizations is possible. Loving County families, whether their children attend Texas A&M, UT Austin, the University of Houston, SMU, Baylor, or any other Texas institution, are operating in a legal landscape profoundly shaped by these lessons. The patterns of negligence, foreseeability, and institutional failures established in these cases serve as guideposts for pursuing justice here in Texas.

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

The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC, is deeply familiar with the unique environments of Texas’s major universities, recognizing that each institution fosters its own culture, policies, and challenges concerning hazing. While we operate out of Houston, our services extend statewide. For Loving County families, whose children may attend any of these schools, understanding the specific context of each campus, its policies, and its history of incidents is crucial.

5.1 University of Houston (UH)

The University of Houston is a large, vibrant urban campus that houses a diverse student body, including many from communities like Loving County who travel to Houston for their education. Its Greek life is active and encompasses a wide array of fraternities and sororities, alongside numerous other student organizations.

5.1.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

UH serves as a major hub for higher education in the Greater Houston area, attracting students from across Texas. Its campus is a dynamic mix of commuter and residential students, fostering a lively student life with a robust Greek system. The fraternities and sororities at UH, including chapters from the Houston Panhellenic Council, Interfraternity Council, Multicultural Greek Council, and National Pan-Hellenic Council, play a significant role in student social life.

5.1.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

UH maintains a comprehensive anti-hazing policy, prohibiting any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, on or off campus, that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of affiliation or membership. This includes forced consumption of alcohol/food/drugs, sleep deprivation, physical mistreatment, and activities causing mental distress. The university provides several reporting channels, including the Dean of Students Office, the Office of Student Conduct, and the University of Houston Police Department (UHPD). UH also provides a public statement regarding hazing and some disciplinary information on its website.

5.1.3 Example Incident & Response

One notable incident involved the Pi Kappa Alpha (Pike) fraternity chapter at UH in 2016. Pledges allegedly suffered from severe food, water, and sleep deprivation during a multi-day event. Disturbingly, one student reportedly suffered a lacerated spleen after being slammed onto a table or similar surface during the hazing. The chapter faced misdemeanor hazing charges from law enforcement and was subsequently suspended by the university, highlighting the severe physical risks associated with such acts. The university has also referenced other disciplinary actions where fraternities engaged in behavior “likely to produce mental or physical discomfort,” often involving alcohol misuse and policy violations, leading to suspensions or probation.

While UH issues suspensions and takes disciplinary action, its public listing of hazing violations may not be as comprehensive or detailed as some other Texas universities, creating challenges for families trying to research an organization’s history.

5.1.4 How a UH Hazing Case Might Proceed

For a hazing incident at UH, an investigation might involve both UHPD and/or the Houston Police Department, depending on where the incident took place and its severity. Civil lawsuits related to hazing at UH would typically be filed in courts with jurisdiction over Houston and Harris County. Potential defendants would include the individual students involved, the local chapter itself, the national fraternity or sorority organization, and potentially the university itself or the property owners where the hazing occurred. Our firm’s direct presence in Houston provides us with intricate knowledge of these local legal processes.

5.1.5 What UH Students & Parents Should Do

• Report to UH: Utilize the Dean of Students Office, UHPD, or the university’s online reporting forms immediately if hazing is suspected or occurs.
• Document Evidence: Since public records of all past incidents may be limited, meticulous documentation by the family (photos, texts, medical records) is vital.
• Understand University Process: Be aware that university investigations are internal and separate from a civil lawsuit. They prioritize university policy enforcement, not necessarily justice or compensation for the victim.
• Seek Legal Counsel: Families from Loving County with students at UH should consult with a lawyer experienced in Houston-based hazing cases. This can help uncover prior discipline, internal university files, and ensure the family’s rights are protected during what can be an adversarial university process. Call Attorney911 for in-depth local expertise.

5.2 Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University, a storied institution renowned for its traditions and the Corps of Cadets, draws students from across Texas, including many from Loving County. Its dense culture, particularly around the Corps and Greek life, also unfortunately presents unique hazing challenges.

5.2.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

Texas A&M is deeply rooted in tradition, fostering a strong sense of identity among its students, often referred to as Aggies. The university’s military-style Corps of Cadets is a central figure, known for its rigorous discipline and tight-knit community, which can sometimes be a cover for abusive practices. Alongside the Corps, Texas A&M boasts a substantial Greek life presence, including a large Interfraternity Council (IFC), Collegiate Panhellenic Council (CPC) for sororities, Multicultural Greek Council (MGC), and National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC). The campus environment, from College Station to Bryan, often emphasizes loyalty and conformity, which can unfortunately exacerbate hazing pressures.

5.2.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

Texas A&M unequivocally prohibits hazing under its Student Rules, defining it similarly to the Texas Education Code definition. The university emphasizes that hazing is illegal and contrary to its values, and that consent is not a defense. Reporting channels include the Student Conduct Office, the Texas A&M University Police Department (TAMU PD), and various online reporting forms. The university also has specific rules and oversight for the Corps of Cadets to prevent harmful customs.

5.2.3 Example Incidents & Responses

• Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) Lawsuit (around 2021): This severe incident brought national attention to hazing at Texas A&M. Two pledges alleged they were subjected to brutal physical hazing, where substances including industrial-strength cleaner, raw eggs, and spit were poured on them, causing severe chemical burns that required emergency skin graft surgeries. The allegations led to a lawsuit against the fraternity seeking $1 million from the fraternity, and the national SAE organization later suspended the chapter for a multi-year period. This case starkly showcased how physical hazing can result in catastrophic, life-altering injuries.
• Corps of Cadets Hazing (2023): A former cadet filed a federal lawsuit against Texas A&M University, alleging degrading hazing within the Corps. This included claims of being forced into simulated sexual acts and being bound in a “roasted pig” pose (legs tied, an apple in the mouth, placed on a bed) amidst other physical and psychological abuse. The cadet sought over $1 million in damages. While the university stated it addressed the matter under its internal rules, the lawsuit highlighted ongoing concerns about hazing within the Corps’ tradition-heavy environment, where practices sometimes blur the line between discipline and abuse.

These incidents demonstrate that hazing at Texas A&M can occur in both Greek life and highly traditional groups like the Corps, underscoring the need for vigilance across all student organizations.

5.2.4 How a Texas A&M Hazing Case Might Proceed

For hazing incidents at Texas A&M, both TAMU PD and, depending on the specifics and location, Bryan or College Station police departments might be involved. Civil litigation would proceed through appropriate state district courts in Brazos County or federal courts with jurisdiction, taking into account A&M’s status as a public university and potential sovereign immunity defenses. Cases against the Corps often involve unique legal considerations related to military-style organizations and institutional oversight. Our firm, with its deep experience in complex litigation, is well-equipped to navigate these intricacies.

5.2.5 What Texas A&M Students & Parents Should Do

• Report Internally & Externally: Report hazing to the Student Conduct Office and TAMU PD. For criminal acts, also consider local police.
• Preserve Evidence Meticulously: Given the strong code of silence within some Aggie traditions, concrete evidence (digital, medical, witness accounts) is paramount.
• Understand Corps Culture: For Corps members and parents, be especially aware of the fine line between tradition and abuse. Document anything that feels coercive or physically/mentally harmful.
• Contact a Hazing Attorney: Families from Loving County with students at Texas A&M should immediately contact an attorney experienced in hazing and institutional liability. We can help pierce through the veil of secrecy and hold both individuals and the university accountable.

5.3 University of Texas at Austin (UT)

The University of Texas at Austin, a flagship institution, is a vibrant hub that attracts students from every corner of Texas, including many bright minds from Loving County. Its campus culture, while dynamic and diverse, has also unfortunately seen a consistent struggle with hazing, despite the university’s efforts at transparency.

5.3.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

UT Austin boasts a large and influential Greek system, comprising a significant number of fraternities and sororities under the University Panhellenic Council (UPC), Interfraternity Council (IFC), Texas Asian Pan-Hellenic Council (TAPC), and National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC). Beyond Greek life, UT is home to countless student organizations, spirit groups (like the former Texas Cowboys), and athletic teams, all of which fall under the university’s anti-hazing policies. The student body is active both on and off campus, particularly in the bustling West Campus area known for housing many fraternity and sorority residences.

5.3.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

UT Austin maintains one of the most transparent hazing reporting systems among Texas universities. Its hazing policy aligns with the Texas Education Code, prohibiting any act that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for initiation or affiliation purposes. Critically, UT explicitly states that consent is not a defense to hazing. The university’s Dean of Students office oversees hazing investigations, and students can report incidents through various channels, including the UT Austin Police Department (UTPD), the Title IX office, and a dedicated online reporting form.

UT’s Public Hazing Violations Page: A key feature of UT Austin’s commitment to transparency is its publicly accessible hazing violations webpage (hazing.utexas.edu). This site lists organizations, the nature of their violations, and the sanctions imposed, providing an invaluable resource for students, parents, and attorneys.

5.3.3 Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

UT Austin’s public hazing log reveals a recurring pattern of violations across various organizations:

• Pi Kappa Alpha (Pika) (2023): The UT chapter of Pi Kappa Alpha faced disciplinary action after new members were reportedly directed to consume large quantities of milk and perform strenuous calisthenics, activities deemed to constitute hazing. The university placed the chapter on probation and mandated new hazing-prevention education. This incident, and others like it, often occur during “new member education” or “pledge” events, highlighting the ongoing challenges despite clear policies.
• Spirit and Tradition Groups: Historically, other student groups, including spirit organizations like the former Texas Cowboys and various academic, social, or athletic clubs, have also faced sanctions for alcohol-related hazing, forced workouts, or other punitive practices aimed at new members. The transparency of UT’s reporting makes these incidents visible and underscores that hazing is not exclusive to Greek life.

The repeated presence of certain organizations on UT’s public log, or the recurrence of similar types of hazing, demonstrates that despite university efforts, hazing persists. This pattern evidence can be extremely valuable in civil litigation, showing that the university and national organizations had knowledge of prior issues.

5.3.4 How a UT Austin Hazing Case Might Proceed

Hazing incidents at UT Austin could involve investigations by both the UTPD and the Austin Police Department, depending on the severity and location of the alleged criminal acts. Civil lawsuits would typically be filed in state district courts in Travis County or federal courts, taking into account UT Austin’s status as a public institution and potential sovereign immunity defenses, which legal professionals understand how to navigate. The existence of UT’s public hazing log provides valuable documentation, often showing prior warnings and a pattern of behavior that can strengthen a plaintiff’s case by demonstrating foreseeability. Families in Loving County whose children attend UT benefit from this transparency, which makes it easier to track and verify allegations.

5.3.5 What UT Students & Parents Should Do

• Consult UT’s Hazing Violations Page: Loving County families should proactively review hazing.utexas.edu to research an organization’s history before or if a problem arises.
• Report Everything: Utilize UT’s online reporting system, notify the Dean of Students, or contact UTPD or the Title IX office if gender-based misconduct is involved.
• Document Thoroughly: Given the transparency and detailed records kept by UT, careful documentation by the family (screenshots, medical records, notes) can significantly complement official university records.
• Seek Experienced Legal Counsel: For significant harm, contact an attorney specialized in institutional liability. They can leverage UT’s strong records, gather additional evidence, and build a case against all responsible parties, including the university, the local chapter, and the national organization.

5.4 Southern Methodist University (SMU)

Southern Methodist University (SMU), a distinguished private institution situated in Dallas, is a popular choice for many Texas students, including those from affluent communities like Loving County. Its reputation is intertwined with a prominent Greek life scene, which, like other universities, has faced its share of hazing allegations.

5.4.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

SMU’s campus ambiance is often associated with its strong Greek system. Many student social activities often revolve around fraternities and sororities within the Panhellenic Council, Interfraternity Council (IFC), National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC), and other multicultural Greek organizations. Students often come from established backgrounds, and the pressure to join and conform within these social circles can be intense, sometimes making reports of hazing particularly difficult due to fear of social repercussions.

5.4.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

SMU implements its own comprehensive anti-hazing policy that is consistent with Texas law, explicitly prohibiting any form of hazing on or off campus, as it endangers mental or physical health or safety. The university emphasizes that consent is never a defense to hazing. SMU encourages reporting through its Office of the Dean of Students, the SMU Police Department, and an anonymous reporting system, including initiatives like “Real Response” which provides a platform for students to report concerns. As a private institution, SMU’s internal disciplinary records typically hold a different level of transparency than those of public universities.

5.4.3 Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

SMU has had to address hazing within its Greek community:

• Kappa Alpha Order Incident (2017): In a widely reported incident, the Kappa Alpha Order fraternity chapter at SMU was suspended after allegations of severe hazing became public. Reports included pledges being subjected to physical abuse (including paddling), forced alcohol consumption, and sleep deprivation. The chapter faced an initial 10-year suspension from the university, which was later reduced significantly but still placed the fraternity under strict restrictions and banned them from recruiting new members for several years. This incident underscored that despite policies, traditional forms of hazing can persist even at well-resourced private universities.

SMU’s hazing prevention efforts include educational programs and anonymous reporting; however, the private nature of the university means that publicly accessible detailed disciplinary actions might not be as readily available as at public institutions like UT Austin.

5.4.4 How an SMU Hazing Case Might Proceed

Given SMU’s location in Dallas, criminal investigations into hazing incidents could involve the SMU Police Department and/or the Dallas Police Department. Civil lawsuits against SMU or its affiliated organizations would typically be pursued in state courts in Dallas County or appropriate federal courts. As a private university, SMU does not benefit from sovereign immunity, making it potentially more straightforward to sue the institution directly for negligence compared to public universities. Our firm’s experience with both public and private institutional liability allows us to tailor legal strategies to the specific nuances of SMU’s operational structure.

5.4.5 What SMU Students & Parents Should Do

• Report Internally: Utilize SMU’s Dean of Students Office, SMU Police, or anonymous reporting platforms.
• Understand Private University Dynamics: Be aware that private universities may handle investigations internally with less public transparency. This makes thorough personal evidence collection even more critical.
• Seek Confidential Legal Advice: Families from Loving County with students at SMU should immediately consult with an attorney experienced in hazing and institutional liability. An attorney can help leverage the discovery process to obtain internal records that might not otherwise be public, even in a private university setting, ensuring full accountability.

5.5 Baylor University

Baylor University, a private Baptist university located in Waco, attracts a significant student population from across Texas, including from Loving County. Baylor’s strong religious identity, combined with its history of scrutiny over significant institutional failures (such as the football sexual assault scandal), creates a complex environment for addressing student misconduct, including hazing.

5.5.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

Baylor’s culture is deeply shaped by its Baptist heritage and emphasis on Christian values, yet it also hosts active Greek life, including Panhellenic, IFC, NPHC, and multicultural organizations, alongside numerous athletic teams and student groups. The university has faced intense scrutiny and criticism in recent years regarding institutional accountability, particularly stemming from the football program’s sexual assault scandal. This history has led to increased awareness and, theoretically, stronger commitment to student safety, but also a deep understanding of institutional defensiveness when faced with serious allegations.

5.5.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

Baylor University stringently prohibits hazing, articulating a “zero tolerance” policy in alignment with Texas law. Its hazing policy explicitly states that such acts interfere with students’ mental or physical health and denigrate the spirit of community. Reporting channels are provided through the Dean of Students Office, the Baylor Police Department, and various online reporting forms, including an anonymous reporting option. The university’s policies also emphasize that consent is not a defense to hazing.

5.5.3 Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

Baylor’s commitment to eradicating harmful practices has been tested, including hazing within its athletic programs:

• Baylor Baseball Hazing (2020): An investigation into hazing allegations within the Baylor baseball program resulted in the suspension of 14 players. The suspensions were staggered over the early part of the baseball season, impacting team performance. While specific details of the hazing were not fully publicized, the incident demonstrated that hazing can occur even within prominent athletic teams at faith-based institutions.

This incident, and any others that come to light, must be viewed through the lens of Baylor’s broader institutional challenges and its public commitments to student welfare. There is often a tension between official “zero tolerance” statements and the persistence of misconduct.

5.5.4 How a Baylor Hazing Case Might Proceed

Criminal investigations for hazing incidents at Baylor could involve the Baylor Police Department and/or the Waco Police Department. Civil lawsuits against Baylor University would be filed in state courts in McLennan County or appropriate federal courts. As a private university, Baylor does not have the protection of sovereign immunity, potentially simplifying the process of holding the institution directly responsible for negligence. However, any case against Baylor may also involve negotiating its historical context and its ongoing efforts to demonstrate student safety—issues our firm understands intimately.

5.4.5 What Baylor Students & Parents Should Do

• Utilize Reporting Channels: Immediately report any hazing concerns to Baylor’s Dean of Students Office, Baylor Police, or through anonymous options.
• Document Thoroughly: Meticulous evidence collection (medical records, photos, communications) is crucial, as private universities may have less public disclosure of past incidents.
• Consider Baylor’s History: Be aware of Baylor’s past institutional challenges. This knowledge can inform expectations regarding transparency and the potential for institutional defensiveness.
• Engage Experienced Counsel: For significant harm from hazing, families from Loving County should consult with an attorney experienced in institutional liability. Legal counsel is vital for navigating Baylor’s specific policies, its internal review processes, and for compelling discovery that ensures all responsible parties are held accountable.

Fraternities & Sororities: Campus-Specific + National Histories

When hazing wreaks havoc on a college campus in Texas, whether at UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, or Baylor, it’s rarely an isolated “rogue incident.” More often, it’s a symptom of deeper organizational issues that span national systems. For Loving County families, understanding the interplay between local chapter conduct and the national history of a fraternity or sorority is paramount for building a comprehensive civil hazing case.

Why National Histories Matter

The vast majority of fraternities and sororities active at Texas universities are chapters of larger, national (or even international) organizations. These national headquarters are not merely symbolic; they are structured entities that:

• Develop the policies, risk management guidelines, and anti-hazing manuals for their chapters.
• Provide training and resources to local chapter officers.
• Collect dues and maintain a relationship with their chapters.
• Often manage significant insurance policies.

Crucially, these national organizations typically possess thick anti-hazing manuals and implement risk management policies precisely because they have already witnessed deaths, catastrophic injuries, and multi-million-dollar lawsuits stemming from hazing incidents at their chapters across the country. They are acutely aware of the dangerous script—the forced drinking nights, the paddling traditions, the humiliating rituals—that can occur under their name.

When a local chapter at a Texas university replicates the exact script that led to a death or severe injury at another chapter in a different state, this is not an unforeseeable accident. It can demonstrate foreseeability and prior notice on the part of the national organization. This understanding forms a powerful argument in civil hazing lawsuits, suggesting that the national entity knew, or should have known, about the dangers inherent in certain “traditions” and failed to adequately prevent them.

Organization Mapping (Synthesized)

While it’s impossible to list every fraternity and sorority and their complete hazing history, we can highlight some prominent national organizations present at Texas universities that have faced significant hazing allegations and tragic outcomes nationwide. These examples illustrate the pattern of recurring hazing within certain national groups.

• Pi Kappa Alpha (ΠΚΑ / Pike): Active at UH, Texas A&M, UT, and Baylor, Pike’s national organization has a troubling history with alcohol-related hazing. The tragic death of Stone Foltz at Bowling Green State University in 2021, where he died from alcohol poisoning after a forced drinking event, resulted in a $10 million settlement from the national fraternity and university. Earlier, David Bogenberger died in 2012 at Northern Illinois University under similar circumstances, leading to a $14 million settlement. These specific incidents demonstrate a repeated pattern of dangerous alcohol hazing that the national organization has been on notice about for years.
• Sigma Alpha Epsilon (ΣΑΕ / SAE): Present at UH, Texas A&M, UT, and SMU, SAE has faced numerous hazing allegations and tragic outcomes. Nationally, SAE has been associated with multiple hazing-related deaths and severe injuries. In Texas, we’ve seen lawsuits against SAE chapters, such as the 2021 case at Texas A&M where pledges alleged severe chemical burns from substances poured on them. More recently, an Australian exchange student sued the UT Austin chapter in January 2024 for over $1 million after an alleged assault. These patterns across campuses, both within Texas and nationally, underscore continued concerns.
• Phi Delta Theta (ΦΔΘ): With chapters at UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, and Baylor, the national Phi Delta Theta organization is tragically remembered for the death of Max Gruver at LSU in 2017. Gruver died from alcohol poisoning after participating in a forced drinking game. The incident led to a felony hazing law in Louisiana. This case highlights another national organization with a clear, recognized pattern of alcohol hazing resulting in death.
• Pi Kappa Phi (ΠΚΦ): Active at UH, Texas A&M, and UT, Pi Kappa Phi’s national organization was implicated in the death of Andrew Coffey at Florida State University in 2017, who died from acute alcohol poisoning during a “Big Brother Night” event. This case further emphasizes the deadly consequences of forced drinking rituals.
• Beta Theta Pi (ΒΘΠ): Found at UH, Texas A&M, UT, and SMU, Beta Theta Pi gained national infamy with the death of Timothy Piazza at Penn State in 2017. Piazza died from injuries sustained during a forced drinking initiation ritual, with fraternity members delaying medical help for hours. This deeply investigated case exposed a culture of negligence that led to criminal charges and significant civil litigation.
• Kappa Sigma (ΚΣ): Chapters at UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, and Baylor. The national organization is linked to the 2001 drowning death of Chad Meredith at the University of Miami, leading to a $12.6 million jury verdict against the fraternity for hazing. Ongoing litigation at Texas A&M (2023) further alleges hazing resulting in severe injuries, including rhabdomyolysis. These cases show varied but severe forms of hazing.
• Phi Gamma Delta (ΦΓΔ / FIJI): Present at Texas A&M, the national Phi Gamma Delta organization was at the center of the Danny Santulli case at the University of Missouri in 2021. Santulli suffered severe, permanent brain damage from extreme alcohol consumption during a hazing event, costing him the ability to walk, talk, or see. The family settled lawsuits with 22 defendants for multi-million-dollar undisclosed amounts. This brutal incident shows the catastrophic non-fatal injuries hazing can inflict.

These examples, while not exhaustive, illustrate that hazing patterns often transcend individual chapters. When a Texas chapter engages in conduct similar to past incidents elsewhere, it provides critical evidence of a national pattern and the national organization’s (often unheeded) warnings.

Tie Back to Legal Strategy

For Loving County families contemplating legal action, understanding these national histories isn’t just about information; it’s a vital component of legal strategy.

• Proving Foreseeability: When a national organization has experienced multiple hazing deaths or severe injuries due to forced alcohol consumption, and another chapter repeats that exact script, it becomes much harder for the national to argue that the event was “unforeseeable.” Our legal team uses this pattern evidence to establish that the national entity had a duty to intervene more decisively due to its prior knowledge.
• Challenging “Rogue Chapter” Defenses: National organizations frequently claim that hazing incidents are the product of “rogue” individuals or chapters acting outside of policy. However, a history of similar incidents across multiple chapters, dating back years, can expose this as a hollow defense, indicating a systemic failure to enforce anti-hazing policies.
• Navigating Insurance Disputes: National fraternities and universities often carry significant insurance policies. However, insurers may attempt to deny coverage by arguing that hazing constitutes “intentional acts” or falls under exclusion clauses. Our firm’s insight into how insurance companies operate—derived from Lupe Peña’s experience as a former insurance defense attorney—allows us to proactively counter these arguments. We identify all potential coverage sources and work to ensure policies are honored, or we pursue bad faith claims if necessary.
• Strengthening Punitive Damages Arguments: In cases where defendants demonstrate reckless disregard for known risks, particularly by ignoring repeated warnings from past hazing incidents, arguments for punitive damages (designed to punish and deter) are significantly strengthened. This is a critical component for achieving true accountability beyond mere compensation.

By strategically connecting local chapter incidents at Texas A&M, UH, UT, SMU, or Baylor to the broader, often tragic, national histories of their parent organizations, we build a powerful case that holds not only the individuals but also the institutions accountable. This approach ensures that justice for Loving County families also contributes to preventing future tragedies across Texas campuses.

Building a Case: Evidence, Damages, Strategy

For Loving County families, initiating a civil lawsuit after a hazing incident can feel overwhelming. However, understanding the meticulous process of building a case—from evidence collection to calculating damages and navigating legal strategies—can empower you. The Manginello Law Firm approaches hazing litigation with comprehensive investigative depth to ensure every responsible party is held accountable.

7.1 Evidence

In today’s digital world, evidence for hazing cases often resides on phones and in the cloud. However, a full investigation looks at every possible source. For Loving County families, preserving every piece of information immediately after an incident is critical.

• Digital Communications: These are often the most crucial pieces of evidence. Group chat messages from platforms like GroupMe, WhatsApp, iMessage, Discord, Slack, or even fraternity-specific apps can reveal planning, intent, knowledge, and the direct coercion involved in hazing. This includes direct messages on Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok. Evidence includes not only live messages but also, with proper legal and forensic tools, recovered or deleted messages. Our firm works with digital forensics experts to retrieve this vital data.
• Photos & Videos: Any existing photos or videos, whether taken by members during the hazing event, shared in group chats, posted on social media, or captured by security cameras (like Ring/doorbell footage at houses or venues), can provide undeniable proof of what transpired. Families should screenshot and save anything they see.
• Internal Organization Documents: Through legal discovery, we can often obtain pledge manuals, initiation scripts, lists of “ritual traditions,” and internal communications (emails, texts) from officers discussing plans for new members. These can reveal the premeditated nature of hazing and contradict claims of “spontaneous fun.” National organization policies and training materials are also subpoenaed to show what the national knew and instructed.
• University Records: A comprehensive investigation delves into university files, including prior conduct histories for the specific chapter or organization, records of probation or suspension, letters of warning, and incident reports filed with campus police or student conduct offices. Public universities like UT Austin, for example, maintain transparent records of hazing violations that can be invaluable. Additionally, Clery reports and similar disclosures can highlight broader patterns of campus safety issues.
• Medical and Psychological Records: These records provide objective documentation of the harm suffered. This includes:
  • Emergency room and hospitalization records, ambulance reports.
  • Surgery and rehabilitation notes.
  • Toxicology reports (blood alcohol, drug tests).
  • Imaging (X-rays, CT scans, MRIs) for physical injuries.
  • Psychological evaluations and therapy notes (for PTSD, depression, anxiety, suicidality) that document the severe emotional and mental toll of hazing. Our firm works with medical professionals to ensure all injuries, visible and invisible, are thoroughly documented.
• Witness Testimony: Eyewitness accounts are powerful. This includes other pledges, current or former members, roommates, Resident Advisors (RAs), coaches, trainers, or any bystander who observed the hazing or its aftermath. Critically, we often work with former members who, now free from the pressure of the organization, are willing to provide honest accounts.

7.2 Damages

In plain English, “damages” refers to the monetary compensation a victim or family can recover to account for their losses and suffering. Hazing incidents can result in a wide range of damages, both economic and non-economic.

• Medical Bills & Future Care: This covers all costs associated with treatment, from the immediate emergency room visit and ambulance transport to subsequent surgeries, ongoing physical therapy, medications, and mental health counseling. For catastrophic injuries like brain damage (as seen in the Danny Santulli case), this includes the formidable cost of lifetime care, which our firm rigorously calculates with expert economists.
• Lost Earnings / Educational Impact: Hazing can disrupt a student’s education, leading to missed semesters, withdrawal from school, or loss of scholarships. These disruptions can delay entry into the workforce and, in cases of permanent injury, significantly reduce a victim’s lifetime earning capacity.
• Non-Economic Damages: These compensate for the subjective yet profound impact of hazing:
  • Physical Pain and Suffering: The agony of severe injuries, the lasting discomfort from permanent damage, and loss of ability to participate in physical activities.
  • Emotional Distress, Trauma, Humiliation: The psychological scars of hazing, including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, panic attacks, and the deep humiliation and shame inflicted during the incidents.
  • Loss of Enjoyment of Life: The inability to pursue hobbies, engage in social activities, or experience the normal joys of college life due to injuries or trauma.
• Wrongful Death Damages (for Families): In the tragic event of a hazing death, surviving family members (parents, spouses, children, and sometimes siblings, depending on Texas law) can recover:
  • Funeral and burial costs.
  • Loss of financial support the deceased would have provided.
  • Loss of companionship, love, and society (the intangible yet invaluable emotional support).
  • The profound grief and emotional suffering of the family.

While we are describing types of damages, we never promise or predict specific dollar amounts. Every case is unique, and compensation depends on the specific facts and legal findings.

7.3 Role of Different Defendants and Insurance Coverage

A critical aspect of hazing litigation involves identifying all potential defendants and navigating the complex world of insurance coverage.

• National Fraternities and Universities often carry substantial insurance policies designed to protect them against lawsuits. However, when faced with a hazing claim, their insurers may attempt to deny coverage by arguing that hazing, especially involving physical assault or intentional acts, falls under explicit policy exclusions for “intentional conduct” or “criminal acts.”
• Experienced Hazing Lawyers like our team at The Manginello Law Firm know how to:
  • Identify all potential sources of coverage: This includes local chapter policies, national organization’s general liability policies, university umbrella policies, and sometimes even individual members’ homeowner’s policies.
  • Navigate disputes about exclusions: We argue that even if individual members acted intentionally, the organization’s negligent supervision, failure to enforce policies, or reckless indifference is what triggers coverage. This distinction is crucial, as negligence is typically covered by insurance.
  • Force insurers to engage: We understand their tactics for delay and denial and will vigorously pursue claims to ensure our clients receive fair consideration. From her time as a former insurance defense attorney, Lupe Peña brings invaluable insider knowledge on how these large insurance companies value (and try to undervalue) claims, providing us with a unique strategic edge.

Negotiating these intricate insurance challenges is a specialized skill. It requires a deep understanding of policy language, a relentless pursuit of all potential avenues for recovery, and the willingness to challenge powerful insurers. This comprehensive approach is part of how Attorney911 ensures maximum accountability and recovery for Loving County families.

Practical Guides & FAQs

For families in Loving County and students across Texas, having clear, actionable guidance during a hazing crisis is invaluable. We provide these resources to help you protect yourself and your loved ones.

8.1 For Parents

When your child leaves Loving County for a Texas university, you hope for their safety and success. If hazing enters the picture, however, you need to be prepared.

• Warning Signs of Hazing:

  • Unexplained injuries or repeated “accidents”: Bruises, burns, cuts that your child can’t or won’t explain logically.
  • Sudden exhaustion and extreme sleep deprivation: Your child always seems tired, naps constantly, or says they’re up all night for “events.”
  • Drastic changes in mood, anxiety, withdrawal: Becoming irritable, anxious, depressed, secretive, or withdrawing from friends and family they once cherished.
  • Constant secret phone use for group chats: Answering messages at odd hours, deleting chats, or showing anxiety when their phone pings shows they are under constant digital pressure.
  • Suddenly defensive or secretive: “I can’t talk about it,” “It’s just tradition,” or refusing to answer questions about group activities.
  • Declining grades or academic performance: Missing classes, failing assignments, or showing a lack of focus on studies.
  • Financial strain: Unexpected requests for money, seemingly arbitrary “fines,” or buying things for older members.

• How to Talk to Your Child:

  • Ask open-ended questions: Instead of “Are you being hazed?”, try “How are things really going with the fraternity/sorority?” or “What’s the hardest part about being a new member?”
  • Emphasize safety over status: Reassure them that leaving a group, even one they feel strongly about, is never a sign of weakness if their safety or well-being is at risk.
  • Support, don’t judge: If they open up, listen without judgment. Focus on ensuring their safety and validating their feelings.

• If Your Child is Hurt:

  • Get them medical care immediately: Prioritize their physical and mental health. Don’t worry about “getting the group in trouble” first.
  • Document everything: Take photos of injuries (with a date stamp if possible), screenshot group chats or social media posts they show you, and write down everything they tell you while the memory is fresh—who, what, when, where.
  • Save essential details: Obtain names, dates, and locations. Save any physical items like damaged clothing or peculiar receipts.

• Dealing with the University:

  • Document every communication: Keep a log of all emails, calls, and meetings with university administrators, including the Dean of Students or Student Conduct Office.
  • Ask pointed questions: Inquire specifically about prior incidents involving the same organization or individuals, and what disciplinary actions, if any, the school took. This information can be crucial for building a case.

• When to Talk to a Lawyer:

  • If your child has suffered significant physical or psychological harm.
  • If you feel the university or organization is minimizing, ignoring, or hiding what happened.
  • Immediately, within 24-48 hours if a serious incident has occurred, to preserve evidence and protect your child’s rights.

8.2 For Students / Pledges

We speak directly to you, the students and new members navigating the complex social landscape of Texas universities. Your safety and well-being are paramount.

• Is This Hazing or Just Tradition?
  • If you feel unsafe, humiliated, or coerced.
  • If you are forced to drink alcohol or endure physical pain.
  • If the activity is hidden from the public or administrators.
  • If you are told to keep secrets or lie to outsiders.
  • If the activities wouldn’t be acceptable outside the context of “initiation.”
  • If it’s causing you significant mental or physical stress.
  • If you answered yes to any of these, it is probably hazing. Your gut feeling is often right.
• Why “Consent” Isn’t the End of the Story: Texas Education Code § 37.155 explicitly states that consent is not a defense to hazing. This means even if you “agreed” to participate, the law still considers it hazing if it endangers your health or safety. The law recognizes the power dynamics, the intense peer pressure, and the fear of exclusion that make true, voluntary consent nearly impossible in these situations.
• Exiting and Reporting Safely:
  • Prioritize your safety. If at any point you feel unsafe, remove yourself from the situation. Call a trusted friend, family member, RA, or even 911.
  • You have the right to leave an organization at any time. You are not bound by any “pledge.”
  • How to report: Most campuses have anonymous tip lines or online reporting forms. You can also contact the Dean of Students office or campus police. If a crime occurred, local city or county police can be contacted. The National Anti-Hazing Hotline (1-888-NOT-HAZE) offers anonymous reporting 24/7.
• Good-Faith Reporting and Amnesty: Many schools and Texas law provide “medical amnesty” or “good-faith reporter” protections. This means if you or someone else calls for help in a medical emergency (e.g., alcohol poisoning), you generally will not be punished for minor policy violations (like underage drinking). Use these protections; saving a life is always the priority.

8.3 For Former Members / Witnesses

You may carry a heavy burden of guilt, regret, or fear regarding past hazing incidents, perhaps even from your time at a Texas university. We want you to know that your voice can make a difference.

• Your Testimony Matters: If you witnessed or participated in hazing, your testimony and any evidence you possess can be crucial in preventing future harm and saving lives. You know the truth about what happened behind closed doors, and your account can help hold individuals and institutions accountable.
• Seeking Legal Advice: If you are a former member with concerns about your own potential legal exposure, it is wise to seek your own legal advice. Our criminal defense experience allows us to advise on the interplay between testifying in a civil case and any potential criminal exposure. Many courageous former members have come forward, understanding that while difficult, contributing to accountability is an important step towards justice and healing. We can help you navigate your role as a witness or advise on your options.

8.4 Critical Mistakes That Can Ruin Your Hazing Case

Loving County families, when navigating a hazing incident, even well-intentioned actions can inadvertently jeopardize a future legal claim. Avoid these common critical mistakes:

1. Letting Your Child Delete Messages or “Clean Up” Evidence:
   • What families think: “I don’t want them to get in more trouble,” or “It’s embarrassing.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Deleting evidence looks like a cover-up, can be considered obstruction of justice, and makes proving your case nearly impossible. Digital forensics can often recover deleted data, but original, immediate preservation is always best.
   • What to do instead: Preserve everything immediately—screenshots of group chats, texts, photos, videos—even if it’s embarrassing. Save it to an external server or email it to a trusted person.
2. Confronting the Fraternity/Sorority Directly:
   • What families think: “I’m going to give them a piece of my mind.”
   • Why it’s wrong: This immediately puts the organization on alert. They will lawyer up, destroy evidence, coach witnesses, and prepare defenses, making your attorney’s job much harder.
   • What to do instead: Document everything in private, then contact an experienced hazing attorney BEFORE any direct confrontation.
3. Signing University “Release” or “Resolution” Forms:
   • What universities do: They may pressure families to sign waivers or agree to “internal resolution” processes quickly.
   • Why it’s wrong: You may inadvertently waive your right to pursue a civil lawsuit, and any “settlement” offered by the university is often far below the true value of the case and may not include all responsible parties.
   • What to do instead: Do NOT sign anything from the university or any organization without having an attorney review it first.
4. Posting Details on Social Media Before Talking to a Lawyer:
   • What families think: “I want people to know what happened and get justice.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Anything posted publicly can be used by defense attorneys against your child’s credibility (e.g., inconsistencies in story, emotional statements taken out of context), and may inadvertently waive legal privileges.
   • What to do instead: Document everything privately and discuss public statements (or lack thereof) with your lawyer.
5. Letting Your Child Go Back to “One Last Meeting” or Discussing the Incident with Members:
   • What perpetrators say: “Come talk to us before you do anything drastic,” or “We just need to clear the air.”
   • Why it’s wrong: These are often tactics to pressure, intimidate, or extract statements that could harm your case later.
   • What to do instead: Once you are considering legal action, all communication with the organization or its members should go through your lawyer.
6. Waiting “to See How the University Handles It”:
   • What universities promise: “We’re investigating this internally; please let us handle it.”
   • Why it’s wrong: University investigations are for policy violations, not for achieving justice or compensation for victims. Evidence disappears quickly (witnesses graduate or forget, records are destroyed), and the statute of limitations may run out. Universities often control the narrative to protect their own reputation.
   • What to do instead: Preserve all evidence NOW and consult a lawyer immediately. The university’s process is separate from pursuing real accountability and compensation.
7. Talking to Insurance Adjusters Without a Lawyer:
   • What adjusters say: “We just need your statement to process the claim.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Adjusters work for the insurance company, not for you. Recorded statements are often used against you, and initial settlement offers are typically lowball.
   • What to do instead: Politely decline to speak with any insurance adjuster directly and tell them, “My attorney will contact you.”

8.5 Short FAQ

• “Can I sue a university for hazing in Texas?”
  Yes, under certain circumstances. Public universities like UH, Texas A&M, and UT have some sovereign immunity protections, but exceptions exist for gross negligence, willful misconduct, Title IX violations, and when suing individuals in their personal capacity. Private universities like SMU and Baylor typically 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. Under Texas law, hazing is generally a Class B misdemeanor. However, it escalates to a state jail felony if the hazing causes serious bodily injury or death. Those who fail to report hazing 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 prosecution for hazing. Courts and juries recognize that “agreement” under intense peer pressure, a power imbalance inherent in initiations, and fear of exclusion is not true voluntary consent.
• “How long do we have to file a hazing lawsuit in Texas?”
  Generally, there is a 2-year statute of limitations from the date of injury or death to file a hazing lawsuit in Texas. However, the “discovery rule” may extend this if the harm or its cause was not immediately known. In cases involving cover-ups or fraud, the statute may be “tolled” (paused). Time is critical—evidence disappears, witnesses’ memories fade, and organizations destroy records. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 immediately to discuss your specific timeline. Learn more about the statute of limitations in our video: 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 for universities or national organizations. Many major hazing cases (e.g., Chun “Michael” Deng at a remote retreat, Collin Wiant at an “unofficial” off-campus house) occurred off-campus and still resulted in multi-million-dollar judgments. Universities and national fraternities can still be liable based on sponsorship, control, knowledge, and foreseeability of hazing activities, regardless of where they take place.
• “Will this be confidential, or will my child’s name be in the news?”
  We understand the privacy concerns that Loving County families have. Most hazing cases settle confidentially before going to trial. We can work to request sealed court records and negotiate confidential settlement terms to protect your family’s privacy while still pursuing accountability.

Where the law is complex or depends on specific details, it is always best to consult with a qualified attorney to review your specific facts.

About The Manginello Law Firm + Call to Action

When your family faces a hazing case in Texas, particularly involving institutions like Texas A&M, the University of Houston, UT Austin, SMU, or Baylor, 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 the Legal Emergency Lawyers™ with the specialized expertise to handle the complexities of hazing litigation. We serve families across Texas, including Loving County and its surrounding regions, bringing dedicated advocacy to your side.

Why Attorney911 for Hazing Cases

Our firm brings unique qualifications to the table for hazing cases:

• Insurance Insider Advantage: Our associate attorney, Lupe Peña, brings invaluable insight as a former insurance defense attorney at a national firm. She understands precisely how university and national fraternity insurance companies value (and often undervalue) hazing claims. She knows their delay tactics, their coverage exclusion arguments, and their settlement strategies because she used to run that playbook. This insider knowledge gives our clients a distinct strategic advantage in navigating these disputes. You can learn more about Lupe Peña’s background at https://attorney911.com/attorneys/lupe-pena/.
• Complex Litigation Against Massive Institutions: Our managing partner, Ralph P. Manginello, has over 25 years of experience, including being one of the few Texas firms involved in the complex BP Texas City explosion litigation. This federal court experience (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas) means we are not intimidated by the resources of national fraternities, major universities, or their formidable defense teams. We have taken on billion-dollar corporations and won; we know how to fight powerful defendants and achieve justice. Discover more about Ralph Manginello’s credentials 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, collaborating with economists to meticulously value loss of life and future financial impact. We understand how to calculate and pursue compensation for the lifelong care needs associated with catastrophic injuries like brain damage or permanent disability. We don’t settle cheap; we build cases that force accountability and achieve fair compensation. Our extensive wrongful death claim experience can be reviewed 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) provides us with a unique understanding of how criminal hazing charges interact with civil litigation. This dual perspective is crucial for advising witnesses, former members, and victims who may be encountering both civil and criminal aspects of a hazing incident. Our criminal defense capabilities are detailed at https://attorney911.com/law-practice-areas/criminal-defense-lawyers/.
• Investigative Depth: We commit to a meticulous investigation of every hazing claim. This means working with a network of experts—medical professionals, digital forensics specialists, economists, and psychologists—to gather every piece of evidence. From obtaining deleted group chats and social media evidence to subpoenaing national fraternity records and uncovering university files through discovery and public records requests. We investigate like your child’s life depends on it—because it does. Watch Attorney911’s video on using your phone to document evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbpzrmogTs.

Our firm understands how fraternities, sororities, Corps programs, and athletic departments actually operate behind closed doors. We know what makes hazing cases different: powerful institutional defendants, complex insurance coverage fights, and the need to balance victim privacy with public accountability while understanding the nuances of Greek culture and proving coercion.

We know this is one of the hardest things a family can face. Our job is to get you answers, hold the right people accountable, and help prevent this from happening to another family. We pursue thorough investigation and real accountability, not just quick settlements.

Call to Action

If you or your child experienced hazing at any Texas campus—whether at Texas A&M, UT Austin, the University of Houston, SMU, Baylor, or any other institution—we want to hear from you. Families in Loving County and throughout the surrounding region have the right to answers and accountability.

Contact The Manginello Law Firm for a confidential, no-obligation consultation. We’ll listen to what happened, explain your legal options, and help you decide on the best path forward.

What to expect in your free consultation with Attorney911:

• We will listen to your story without judgment and with complete confidentiality.
• We’ll review any evidence you have (photos, texts, medical records).
• We will explain your legal options, discussing whether a criminal report, a civil lawsuit, both, or neither is the right path for your family.
• We will discuss realistic timelines and what to expect during the legal process.
• We will answer your questions about costs. We work on a contingency fee basis, meaning we don’t get paid unless we win your case. You can learn more about how contingency fees work in our video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upcI_j6F7Nc.
• There is no pressure to hire us on the spot; we want you to take the time to decide what is best for your family.
• Everything you tell us is strictly confidential.

Whether you’re in Loving County or anywhere across Texas, if hazing has impacted your family, you don’t have to face this alone. Call us today.

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

Hablamos Español – Contact Lupe Peña at lupe@atty911.com for consultation in Spanish. 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