South Carolina Fraternity Hazing Attorneys | Attorney911 — The Firm That Closed Beta Nu, $24M PIKE Settlements | Federal Court | Former Insurance Defense | 1-888-ATTY-911

If you are searching for answers related to hazing in South Carolina, the silence surrounding such incidents can be an isolating experience. Imagine a student from right here in Mount Pleasant, full of dreams for a future at a university like the College of Charleston, suddenly finding themselves forced into demeaning and dangerous activities for the sake of “belonging.” They might face forced drinking games at an off-campus house near Five Forks, or endure humiliating antics somewhere near Myrtle Beach. When things go wrong and someone gets hurt, the fear of “getting the chapter in trouble”—or worse, facing social alienation—can make it agonizingly difficult to speak out.

This scenario isn’t just a hypothetical for families in South Carolina; it’s a stark reality that touches every corner of our state, from Greenville to Columbia. Whether your child attends Clemson, the University of South Carolina, or Furman, the pressure to conform and endure harmful rituals can jeopardize their physical and mental well-being. This comprehensive guide serves as a critical resource for families in South Carolina and across the nation, aiming to shed light on what hazing truly entails, the legal ramifications involved, and how to pursue accountability when the unthinkable happens.

Our goal is to arm you with knowledge: what hazing looks like in 2025 (beyond outdated stereotypes), the specific legal frameworks in Texas and nationally, insights from landmark national cases, and the implications for students at major Texas universities where many South Carolina families send their children.

It’s crucial to understand that this article provides general information and is not a substitute for personalized legal advice. The Manginello Law Firm is committed to evaluating each case based on its unique facts, serving families throughout Texas and across the United States. We serve those in South Carolina with the same dedication and expertise.

IMMEDIATE HELP FOR HAZING EMERGENCIES:

• If your child is in danger RIGHT NOW:

  • Call 911 for medical emergencies immediately.
  • Then call Attorney911: 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911).
  • We provide immediate help—that’s why we’re the Legal Emergency Lawyers™.

• In the first 48 hours, every second counts:

  • Get medical attention for your child, even if they insist they are “fine.” Their health is the absolute priority.
  • Preserve evidence BEFORE it’s deleted:
    • Screenshot group chats, texts, and direct messages (DMs) immediately.
    • Photograph any visible injuries from multiple angles, noting bruises, cuts, or other trauma.
    • 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 specific details your child shared.
  • Do NOT:
    • Confront the fraternity, sorority, or organization directly, as this often leads to evidence destruction.
    • Sign anything from the university or an insurance company without legal counsel.
    • Post details on public social media, as this can harm a potential legal case.
    • Allow your child to delete messages or “clean up” any evidence.

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

  • Evidence disappears rapidly, including digital communications, physical items, and the clear memories of witnesses.
  • Universities often move quickly to manage the narrative and protect their institutional interests.
  • We can help preserve crucial evidence and protect your child’s legal rights.
  • Call 1-888-ATTY-911 for an immediate, confidential consultation.

HAZING IN 2025: WHAT IT REALLY LOOKS LIKE

Modern hazing extends far beyond the harmless initiation rites or “boys will be boys” pranks of yesteryear. Today, it encompasses a wide spectrum of behaviors designed to create a power imbalance, enforce conformity, and test loyalty, often at severe cost to mental and physical health. For families in South Carolina, understanding this evolving landscape is crucial, as hazing takes on new forms—including insidious digital coercion—while still retaining its dangerous traditional elements.

Clear, modern definition of hazing

Hazing, in its essence, is any forced, coerced, or strongly pressured action connected to joining, maintaining membership, or achieving status within a group. This behavior is considered hazing if it endangers a student’s mental or physical health, humiliates them, or exploits them. It’s critical to understand that a student saying “I agreed to it” does not automatically render the activity safe or legal. In environments marked by peer pressure, a deep desire for acceptance, and inherent power imbalances, genuine consent is often absent.

Main categories of hazing

Hazing manifests in various forms, many of which can occur in communities like Greenville, Columbia, or Charleston. It is vital for students and parents to recognize these distinct, yet often interconnected, categories:

• Alcohol and substance hazing: This is arguably the most dangerous and prevalent form of hazing, frequently leading to tragic outcomes. It involves forced or coerced drinking, often through extreme challenges like chugging contests, “lineups” where large quantities of alcohol must be consumed, or games designed to maximize intoxication. Underage members may be pressured to drink unknown or dangerously mixed substances. This can easily escalate to alcohol poisoning, a medical emergency that can be fatal.
• Physical hazing: This category encompasses any activity that inflicts physical discomfort or injury. Examples include paddling, beatings, or violent physical contests. Strenuous calisthenics, excessive “workouts,” or “smokings” (forced exercise beyond reasonable limits) are common, leading to exhaustion, injury, or severe conditions like rhabdomyolysis. Sleep and food or water deprivation are also prevalent tactics, weakening pledges and making them more susceptible to control. Exposure to extreme environmental conditions, such as being left outside in severe cold or heat unprotected, also falls into this category.
• Sexualized and humiliating hazing: This deeply degrading form of hazing involves forced nudity or partial nudity, simulated sexual acts, or poses that are sexually suggestive or demeaning (“roasted pig” positions, “elephant walks”). It often includes wearing degrading costumes. There may also be acts with overtly racial, homophobic, or sexist overtones, including the use of slurs or forced role-playing of stereotypes, designed to demean and belittle individuals.
• Psychological hazing: While not physically violent, psychological hazing inflicts severe emotional and mental distress. This includes verbal abuse, threats, isolation from friends or family, and subtle forms of manipulation or forced confessions. Public shaming, whether face-to-face or through social media, can lead to profound and lasting emotional scars, impacting a student’s self-esteem and mental health long after the hazing ends.
• Digital/online hazing: This is a rapidly evolving frontier of hazing, utilizing modern technology to exert control and inflict humiliation. It involves group chat dares, “challenges,” and public shaming via platforms like Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and Discord. Pledges may be pressured to create or share compromising images or videos, use specific hashtags, or engage in online tasks that are humiliating. Constant monitoring, demanding immediate responses, and the creation of “burner” accounts for illicit activities are other common digital hazing tactics.

Where hazing actually happens

It is a common misconception that hazing is exclusively a “fraternity thing.” In reality, hazing permeates various student organizations across college campuses nationwide, including those attended by students from South Carolina. While fraternities and sororities (including Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic, National Pan-Hellenic Council, and multicultural Greek-letter organizations) are frequently associated with hazing, they are far from the only perpetrators. Hazing also occurs in:

• ROTC, Corps of Cadets, and military-style groups: These organizations often embrace tradition and discipline, which can unfortunately be twisted into hazing rituals involving physical endurance, sleep deprivation, and psychological pressure, often perceived as “toughening up” new members.
• Spirit squads and tradition clubs: Groups centered around school spirit, like cheerleading, dance teams, or campus-specific tradition organizations (such as the Texas Cowboys at UT Austin), can develop their own secretive rituals that escalate into hazing.
• Athletic teams: From football and basketball to baseball, soccer, and cheerleading, hazing is a documented problem across collegiate sports. This can involve forced alcohol consumption, physical abuse, or demeaning activities masquerading as team-building exercises.
• Marching bands and performing arts groups: Even organizations dedicated to artistic expression can fall prey to hazing by older members enforcing “traditions” on new recruits, leading to physical or emotional harm.
• Some service, cultural, and academic organizations: While less common, these groups are not immune. The desire for exclusivity and the perpetuation of “traditions” can lead to hazing activities that contradict the organization’s stated values.

The common threads running through these diverse groups are social status, tradition, and secrecy. These elements create an environment where hazing can persist, even when participants are fully aware that such practices are illegal and harmful. The desire to belong and the fear of social exclusion often compel students to endure these rituals in silence.

LAW & LIABILITY FRAMEWORK (TEXAS + FEDERAL)

For families in South Carolina, understanding the legal landscape surrounding hazing is crucial, especially when considering universities in Texas. Texas has a robust framework to address hazing, but navigating it requires specialized knowledge. This section explains the key legal concepts governing hazing, from state criminal penalties to federal oversight, and identifies who can be held responsible in civil lawsuits.

Texas hazing law basics (Education Code)

Texas takes hazing seriously, with specific anti-hazing provisions embedded in its Education Code. It’s important for South Carolina families to know that these laws apply to any Texas institution their child attends. In plain terms, hazing is defined as any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, committed by one person or a group, whether on or off campus, directed against a student. This act must either:

• Endanger the mental or physical health or safety of a student, or
• Occur for the purpose of pledging, initiation into, affiliation with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization whose members include students.

This definition is intentionally broad. It covers physical harm (like beatings, forced exercise, or coerced alcohol/drug consumption) as well as significant threats to mental health (such as extreme humiliation, isolation, or intimidation). The law does not require malicious intent; acting “recklessly”—meaning choosing to disregard a known risk—is enough. Crucially, the argument of “I agreed to it” is not a valid defense in Texas hazing cases, as the law recognizes the coercive dynamics at play.

Texas law outlines both criminal penalties and vital protections for reporters:

• Criminal penalties: Hazing can lead to significant criminal charges. It’s typically a Class B misdemeanor by default, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,000. However, if the hazing causes injuries requiring medical treatment, it escalates to a Class A misdemeanor. Most critically, if hazing results in serious bodily injury or death, it becomes a state jail felony, carrying much more severe consequences. Officers or members who know about hazing and fail to report it can also face misdemeanor charges, as can those who retaliate against a reporter.
• Reporter protections: To encourage reporting, Texas law provides immunity from civil or criminal liability for individuals who report hazing incidents in good faith to university authorities or law enforcement. This means those who come forward with information about hazing practices are protected, even if they were involved themselves. Furthermore, in situations involving medical emergencies (such as extreme alcohol intoxication), Texas law and most university policies often grant “amnesty” to individuals who call 911 in good faith, protecting them from prosecution for minor offenses (like underage drinking) that might be discovered during the emergency response.

This summary highlights the key aspects of Texas hazing law, emphasizing that the actual statutes contain more technical legal language and specifics.

Criminal vs civil cases

When a hazing incident occurs, it can trigger two distinct legal pathways: criminal cases and civil cases. While both aim for justice, they have different objectives, processes, and outcomes, which South Carolina families should understand.

• Criminal cases: These are initiated and pursued by the state, with a prosecutor representing the public interest. The primary goal of a criminal case is to punish offenders for violating existing laws. In the context of hazing, criminal charges often include:
  • Hazing offenses (misdemeanor or felony, depending on the severity of harm).
  • Furnishing alcohol to minors.
  • Assault, battery, or even more serious charges like negligent homicide or manslaughter in cases resulting in death.
  • If convicted, individuals may face jail time, fines, probation, or a criminal record.
• Civil cases: These are initiated by victims or their surviving family members. The main objectives of a civil case are monetary compensation for damages suffered and holding responsible parties accountable. Civil claims for hazing might involve:
  • Negligence or gross negligence: Alleging that individuals, chapters, or institutions failed to exercise reasonable care, leading to harm.
  • Wrongful death: Brought by families after a hazing-related fatality, seeking damages for loss of support, companionship, and emotional suffering.
  • Negligent hiring, supervision, or retention: Arguing that organizations or universities failed to properly vet, supervise, or remove individuals or chapters with known risks.
  • Premises liability: If the hazing occurred on property where the owner or occupier failed to maintain safe conditions or knew of dangerous activities.
  • Intentional infliction of emotional distress: For severe psychological harm caused by deliberate or reckless conduct.

It’s important to note that criminal and civil cases can proceed simultaneously. A criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for a civil lawsuit, and victims can pursue civil claims even if criminal charges are not filed or do not result in a conviction.

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

Beyond state laws, a significant federal framework also impacts hazing, particularly for colleges and universities that receive federal funding. This federal oversight plays a crucial role in ensuring transparency, prevention, and accountability across campuses, including those frequented by South Carolina students.

• Stop Campus Hazing Act (2024): This landmark federal legislation mandates that institutions receiving federal student aid must report hazing incidents with greater transparency. It requires colleges and universities to:

  • Publicly disclose hazing violations, including details about the organizations involved and the sanctions imposed.
  • Implement and strengthen comprehensive hazing education and prevention programs for students, staff, and faculty.
  • Maintain and make publicly accessible data on hazing incidents, with full implementation phased in by approximately 2026.
    This act aims to provide families with clear, accessible information about hazing at prospective institutions and hold schools accountable for prevention efforts.

• Title IX: This federal law prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. When hazing involves sexual harassment, sexual assault, or gender-based hostility (e.g., forcing male pledges to simulate sexual acts, demeaning female members), Title IX obligations are triggered. Under Title IX, universities have a responsibility to:

  • Investigate promptly and equitably.
  • Take steps to stop the discrimination.
  • Prevent its recurrence.
  • Remedy its effects.
    This provides an avenue for victims of sexually charged hazing to seek action directly from their university, often independent of criminal processes.

• Clery Act: The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act requires colleges and universities to disclose information about crime on and around their campuses. Hazing incidents can often overlap with crime categories reportable under Clery, such as:

  • Assaults (aggravated or simple).
  • Alcohol and drug-related arrests or disciplinary referrals.
  • Sex offenses.

  This act ensures that institutions provide an Annual Security Report, which includes crime statistics and information on campus safety policies, including those related to hazing. These federal laws collectively create a multi-layered legal environment that aims to address hazing from various angles, providing victims and their families with multiple avenues for relief and accountability.

Who can be liable in a civil hazing lawsuit

In a civil hazing lawsuit, a range of individuals and entities can be held responsible, reflecting the shared culpability often present in these complex situations. Understanding who might be liable is critical for families in South Carolina seeking justice.

• Individual students: The individuals directly involved in planning, carrying out, or facilitating the hazing acts are often primary targets. This includes those who actively participated, supplied alcohol or drugs, inflicted physical harm, or failed to intervene when a fellow student was in danger. Their personal actions, whether intentional or reckless, form the basis of their liability.
• Local chapter/organization: The specific fraternity, sorority, club, or team itself – if it operates as a recognized legal entity with its own assets – can be named as a defendant. This often extends to individuals acting in leadership capacities, such as chapter presidents, pledge masters, new member educators, or coaches, who are responsible for the actions of the group.
• National fraternity/sorority: Many local chapters are affiliates of larger national organizations. These national headquarters can be held liable if it can be proven they:
  • Knew or should have known about a pattern of hazing within their chapters (including the specific local chapter or others using similar tactics).
  • Failed to adequately train, supervise, or discipline local chapters.
  • Did not enforce their own anti-hazing policies effectively.
  • Continued to collect dues or maintain oversight despite known hazing risks.
• University or governing board: Colleges and universities often face liability for hazing that occurs on or off their campuses. Their responsibility typically hinges on:
  • Negligent supervision: Failing to adequately monitor or control student organizations.
  • Failure to enforce policies: Not consistently applying or investigating violations of their own hazing policies.
  • Deliberate indifference: Showing a clear disregard for known hazing risks or complaints.
  • Title IX violations: If the hazing involves sexual misconduct or gender-based discrimination.
    Public universities in Texas (like the University of South Carolina or Clemson) may have some sovereign immunity protections, but these are not absolute, especially in cases of gross negligence or Title IX violations. Private universities (such as Furman or Converse) generally have fewer immunity protections.
• Third parties: Depending on the specifics of the incident, other entities might also be named as defendants:
  • Landlords or property owners: If the hazing occurred on property they owned or managed, and they knew or should have known about dangerous activities taking place.
  • Bars or event venues: If they illegally served alcohol to minors or to obviously intoxicated individuals who then engaged in hazing, under what are known as “dram shop” laws.
  • Security companies or event organizers: If their negligence contributed to the unsafe environment where hazing occurred.

Every hazing case is fact-specific, and the determination of liability depends heavily on the unique circumstances and available evidence. South Carolina families should consult an experienced attorney to assess all potential responsible parties.

NATIONAL HAZING CASE PATTERNS (ANCHOR STORIES)

While hazing incidents often feel isolated and personal, they are part of a disturbing national pattern. Landmark cases, many of which have involved significant personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits, set critical precedents for accountability and illustrate the devastating consequences of hazing. For South Carolina families, understanding these national tragedies reveals how courts analyze liability and how negligence and systemic failures can be proven against institutions and organizations.

Alcohol poisoning & death pattern

The most common and lethal pattern in hazing involves coerced or forced alcohol consumption. These cases frequently result in tragic deaths, highlighting a severe and preventable risk.

• Timothy Piazza – Penn State, Beta Theta Pi (2017): Timothy Piazza’s death galvanized the anti-hazing movement. At a bid-acceptance event, Piazza was forced to consume dangerous amounts of alcohol. He suffered multiple falls, captured on the fraternity’s own security cameras, yet members delayed calling 911 for nearly 12 hours. This reckless disregard for his worsening condition led to severe criminal charges against multiple fraternity members, civil litigation resulting in undisclosed settlements, and the passage of Pennsylvania’s stringent anti-hazing law named after him. His case underscores that extreme intoxication, deliberate delay in seeking medical help, and a pervasive culture of silence are legally devastating for all involved.
• Andrew Coffey – Florida State, Pi Kappa Phi (2017): Andrew Coffey died during a “Big Brother Night” in which new pledges were gifted with handles of hard liquor and pressured to finish them. Investigators determined he died from acute alcohol poisoning. The incident led to criminal hazing charges against fraternity members, prompted Florida State University to temporarily suspend all Greek life, and initiated widespread campus policy overhauls. This case tragically illustrates how formulaic, tradition-based drinking nights are a repeating script for disaster within Greek organizations.
• Maxwell “Max” Gruver – LSU, Phi Delta Theta (2017): Max Gruver died with an astronomically high blood alcohol content (0.495%) after participating in a “Bible study” drinking game. Pledges were forced to drink whenever they answered questions incorrectly. His death spurred Louisiana to enact the Max Gruver Act, a felony hazing law. This tragic outcome demonstrates that legislative change often follows intense public outrage and clear, undeniable proof of hazing’s lethal consequences.
• Stone Foltz – Bowling Green State University, Pi Kappa Alpha (2021): Stone Foltz, a new pledge, died from alcohol poisoning after being compelled to drink an entire handle of liquor during a “Big/Little” night. This incident led to multiple criminal convictions against fraternity members for hazing and manslaughter. Critically, Bowling Green State University—a public institution—agreed to a nearly $3 million settlement with the Foltz family, with the Pi Kappa Alpha national fraternity settling for $7 million. This case emphatically proves that universities, alongside fraternities, can face massive financial and reputational consequences for failing to prevent hazing.

Physical & ritualized hazing pattern

Beyond alcohol, hazing frequently involves physical abuse, extreme exertion, or ritualized acts that cause severe injury or death. These incidents reveal the premeditated and often sadistic nature of some hazing.

• Chun “Michael” Deng – Baruch College, Pi Delta Psi (2013): Michael Deng’s death stands as one of the most significant hazing cases for its legal ramifications. At a remote off-campus retreat in the Pocono Mountains, pledges were blindfolded and subjected to a violent “glass ceiling” ritual, where they were repeatedly tackled while carrying backpacks. Deng suffered a traumatic brain injury and died after fraternity members delayed calling for medical help for an hour. This case resulted in multiple criminal convictions, and critically, the national Pi Delta Psi fraternity was criminally convicted of aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter, the first time a national organization faced such charges. The fraternity was banned from operating in Pennsylvania for 10 years and fined over $110,000. This case served as a stark warning to national organizations: off-campus events do not shield them from liability.

Athletic program hazing & abuse

Hazing is not confined to Greek organizations; it is a pervasive issue within athletic programs, where “team building” can tragically morph into brutal rituals. Such incidents highlight the failure of institutional oversight beyond Greek life structures.

• Northwestern University football (2023–2025): In a scandal that rocked collegiate athletics, former Northwestern football players came forward with allegations of widespread sexualized and racist hazing within the program, spanning multiple years. The incidents described included forced sexually explicit acts in front of teammates and coaches. This led to the firing of long-time head coach Pat Fitzgerald, who subsequently filed a wrongful-termination lawsuit against the university (which was confidentially settled in August 2025). Multiple players also sued Northwestern and numerous coaching staff members. This saga vividly demonstrates that hazing extends beyond Greek life into major athletic programs, involving high-profile coaches and significant institutional cover-ups, raising profound questions about accountability and oversight.

What these cases mean for South Carolina families

These national hazing cases, although geographically diverse, reveal universal threads of danger and liability that are highly relevant to South Carolina families with students attending Texas universities.

The common elements are disturbingly consistent: forced drinking, extreme physical exertion, profound humiliation, often accompanied by delayed or outright denied medical care, and concerted cover-up efforts. These patterns illustrate a pervasive culture of risk that organizations knowingly cultivate, leading to predictable and preventable tragedies.

Crucially, these cases also demonstrate that accountability, often in the form of multi-million-dollar settlements and verdicts, typically only follows after a tragedy has irrevocably altered lives, and dedicated legal action has forced institutions to confront their failures. For South Carolina families navigating the complex world of Texas higher education, these anchor stories serve as a powerful reminder: you are not alone in facing these challenges, and the legal landscape has been precisely shaped by these hard-won battles for justice. The precedents set in these cases provide a foundation for pursuing accountability in Texas courts, offering a path forward for those affected by similar incidents at universities like Clemson, the University of South Carolina, or anywhere across the nation where these lessons apply.

TEXAS FOCUS: UH, TEXAS A&M, UT, SMU, BAYLOR

For families in South Carolina, the decision of where to send a child for higher education is immense. Many look to Texas for its renowned universities, vibrant culture, and diverse opportunities. However, even the most prestigious institutions—including the University of Houston, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor—are not immune to the serious issue of hazing. This section provides an in-depth look at hazing at these five major Texas universities, offering crucial context for South Carolina parents and students. To serve our South Carolina readers, we will prioritize universities based on their relevance to families in the state. For instance, many South Carolina families often send their children to top-tier out-of-state programs like those in Texas due to academic reputation, specific programs, or to broaden their experiences beyond their home state. This makes information about hazing at these institutions extremely vital.

5.1 University of Houston (UH)

The University of Houston is a pivotal location for understanding hazing accountability in Texas, especially for current and prospective students, and their families. This is tragically highlighted by the Leonel Bermudez v. University of Houston / Pi Kappa Phi lawsuit, a landmark case handled by Attorney911.

5.1.1 Campus & culture snapshot at UH

The University of Houston, often simply referred to as UH, is a large, public research university situated in the heart of Houston, Texas. Serving a diverse student body, UH is characterized by both a strong local presence and a growing appeal to out-of-state students, including many from South Carolina seeking specific programs in engineering, business, or the arts. Campus life is a mix of commuter and residential experiences, underpinned by an active Greek life scene with a variety of Interfraternity Council (IFC), Panhellenic, National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC), and multicultural organizations. Beyond Greek life, numerous student organizations, cultural groups, and competitive sports clubs contribute to a dynamic campus environment, making it a vibrant draw for students from places like Greenville, Columbia, and Charleston looking for a metropolitan university experience.

5.1.2 Official hazing policy & reporting channels at UH

The University of Houston maintains a strict policy prohibiting hazing, applicable to all registered student organizations and individual students, regardless of whether the activities occur on or off campus. The policy clearly defines hazing as any intentional, knowing, or reckless act that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for initiation, affiliation, or continued membership. Specifically, UH’s policy prohibits forced consumption of alcohol, drugs, or food, sleep deprivation, physical mistreatment, and acts causing mental distress.

UH provides several channels for reporting hazing incidents, aiming to encourage immediate action and intervention:

• Dean of Students Office: Serves as a central point for student conduct issues, including hazing reports.
• Student Conduct Office: Manages investigations and disciplinary processes related to hazing.
• University of Houston Police Department (UHPD): For incidents involving potential criminal activity or immediate safety concerns.
• Online Reporting Forms: Available through the university’s website for anonymous or identified submissions.
  UH also provides educational resources to prevent hazing and disseminates information about its policies. Transparency is encouraged, and the university often posts statements and some disciplinary actions related to hazing violations on its official website.

5.1.3 Selected documented incidents & responses at UH: The Bermudez Case

Recent history at the University of Houston is underscored by a major hazing lawsuit that vividly illustrates the dangers students face and the critical need for accountability.

In late 2025, The Manginello Law Firm / Attorney911 filed a $10 million lawsuit on behalf of Leonel Bermudez, a University of Houston transfer student who, as a pledge for the Pi Kappa Phi fraternity’s Beta Nu chapter, endured egregious hazing. This case is a stark reminder to South Carolina families of how quickly celebratory campus events can turn perilous.

The hazing alleged against Pi Kappa Phi at UH included:

• Forced physical exertion: Pledges, including Bermudez, were subjected to demanding physical activities like sprints, bear crawls, and “save-your-brother” drills. A particularly brutal workout on November 3 involved over 100 push-ups and 500 squats, which left Bermudez unable to stand.
• Degrading rituals: Pledges were made to carry a “fanny pack” 24/7 containing humiliating items, and non-compliance was met with threats of punishment or expulsion.
• Abuse and humiliation: Specific acts included forced consumption of milk, hot dogs, and peppercorns until vomiting, followed by immediate sprints. Bermudez also alleged being forced to lie in vomit-soaked grass and sprayed with a hose “similar to waterboarding.”
• Delay in seeking medical aid: These activities, sometimes conducted at remote locations like Yellowstone Boulevard Park, resulted in severe medical consequences. Bermudez developed rhabdomyolysis (severe muscle breakdown) and acute kidney failure, passing brown urine—a classic symptom of the condition. He required four days of hospitalization for critically high creatine kinase (CK) levels.

Attorney Ralph Manginello, representing Bermudez, commented on the severity, stating, “His urine was brown,” emphasizing the life-threatening nature of the injuries. Lupe Peña of Attorney911 added, “If this prevents harm to another person…Let’s bring this to light. Enough is enough.” The case names not only the Pi Kappa Phi national organization and local chapter, but also the University of Houston, its Board of Regents, and 13 individual fraternity members as defendants, demonstrating the wide net of accountability. The chapter was suspended on November 6 and officially surrendered its charter on November 14, just days after the lawsuit was filed. This incident highlights the university’s active Greek life and the serious, life-altering risks of hazing at UH.

5.1.4 How a UH hazing case might proceed for a South Carolina family

For a South Carolina family dealing with a hazing incident at UH, the legal process can feel daunting. However, Attorney911 specializes in navigating these complexities. Because UH is located in Houston, civil lawsuits will typically be filed in courts with jurisdiction over Houston and Harris County, Texas. This means while the family may reside in South Carolina, their legal battle will proceed under Texas law in Texas courts.

Potential defendants can include the individual students directly involved, the local Pi Kappa Phi chapter (even if disbanded), the national Pi Kappa Phi organization, and potentially the University of Houston itself, especially if there’s evidence of negligent oversight or failure to enforce policies. Expert attorneys will investigate the university’s knowledge of prior hazing incidents, their enforcement of anti-hazing policies, and the adequacy of their reporting and response mechanisms. South Carolina families need a legal team capable of managing an out-of-state lawsuit, collaborating with local experts, and ensuring all evidence is preserved and presented effectively within the Texas legal system.

5.1.5 What UH students and parents should do

If you are a student at the University of Houston or a parent in South Carolina whose child attends UH and you suspect or know about hazing:

• Prioritize Medical Care: If there are injuries or distress, seek immediate medical attention. Be explicit with medical staff about what happened, as this becomes crucial documentation.
• Document Everything: Take screenshots of all relevant messages, photos of injuries, and notes of who was involved and when. Evidence is critical and can disappear fast.
• Understand Reporting Channels: Report suspected hazing through the UH Dean of Students Office, Student Conduct, or UHPD. Know these options: UH encourages anonymous reporting, but for legal action, identified reports with evidence are stronger.
• Review Your Rights: Be aware that Texas law and UH policy prohibit retaliation against those who report hazing in good faith.
• Consult Legal Counsel: Contact experienced attorneys, like Attorney911, who handle hazing cases specifically in Texas. We can guide you through the reporting process, ensure your legal rights are protected, and help decide the best course for accountability. For South Carolina families, this is especially important when dealing with legal proceedings in a different state.

5.2 Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University is known for its deep-seated traditions and strong sense of community, drawing students nationally, including many from South Carolina. However, this fervent dedication to tradition can sometimes create an environment where hazing takes root, not only within its Greek system but prominently within its historic Corps of Cadets.

5.2.1 Campus & culture snapshot at Texas A&M

Texas A&M University, located in College Station, Texas, is a behemoth of tradition, academic rigor, and school spirit. Its student body is one of the largest in the nation, attracting thousands of students from South Carolina and beyond seeking an immersive university experience. The campus culture is heavily influenced by its military roots, most notably embodied by the Corps of Cadets, the largest uniformed student body in the country. This unique environment fosters a strong sense of camaraderie and discipline, but also sets a stage for potential hazing that can go beyond traditional Greek life. Greek life is robust at A&M, with numerous fraternities and sororities contributing to a diverse social scene, but they operate within a shadow of the Corps’ powerful and often insular culture. Students from cities like Charleston or Columbia, accustomed to varied campus experiences, find A&M’s strong traditions both appealing and, at times, challenging.

5.2.2 Official hazing policy & reporting channels at Texas A&M

Texas A&M University maintains a comprehensive hazing policy that explicitly prohibits any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, on or off campus, directed against a student for initiation, affiliation, or continued membership in an organization, which endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student. This policy extends to all student organizations, including the Corps of Cadets, athletic teams, and Greek-letter organizations.

Reporting channels at Texas A&M are designed to provide multiple avenues for students to come forward:

• Dean of Student Life: The primary point of contact for student conduct issues, including hazing reports.
• Texas A&M University Police Department (UPD): For any suspected criminal activity related to hazing.
• Corps of Cadets chain of command: Cadets are encouraged to report incidents through their specific leadership structure, with provisions for anonymity if desired.
• Anonymous reporting hotlines: The university operates an online reporting system that allows individuals to submit concerns without revealing their identity.
  Texas A&M emphasizes proactive education and clearly states its zero-tolerance stance on hazing, reinforcing the message across all student groups, including those popular with students from South Carolina. While the policies are strong on paper, enforcement and the pervasive nature of some traditions remain critical challenges.

5.2.3 Selected documented incidents & responses at Texas A&M

Texas A&M’s history with hazing has been marked by incidents within both its Greek system and its revered Corps of Cadets, demonstrating the broad scope of the problem.

• Sigma Alpha Epsilon Lawsuit (around 2021): This case drew national attention when two pledges alleged brutal hazing tactics that resulted in severe injuries. They claimed fraternity members covered them in various substances, including an industrial-strength cleaner, raw eggs, and spit, causing extensive chemical burns that necessitated skin graft surgeries. The plaintiffs sued the fraternity for $1 million, the chapter was suspended by the university, and the incident sparked a major investigation. This case vividly illustrates the extreme physical dangers some pledges face.
• Corps of Cadets Hazing (2023): In a separate but equally disturbing incident, a former cadet filed a lawsuit alleging degrading and dehumanizing hazing rituals within the Corps of Cadets. The cadet claimed being forced into simulated sexual acts and tied up in a “roasted pig” pose with an apple in his mouth, reflecting psychological torment and physical restraint. The university responded by stating it handled the matter under its strict Corps regulations, but the lawsuit brought the deeply ingrained nature of some Corps traditions under a harsh spotlight.
• Aggie Bonfire Collapse (1999): While not traditional hazing, the tragic collapse of the student-built Aggie Bonfire, which killed 12 and injured 27, raised profound questions about unsupervised, tradition-driven student activities and the university’s oversight. Multiple lawsuits against university officials resulted in settlements exceeding $6 million in total, leading to the permanent cessation of the official Bonfire tradition. This event highlighted the institutional perils of student-led high-risk activities that lack adequate control and safety measures.

These incidents underscore the ongoing tension between upholding cherished traditions and ensuring student safety at Texas A&M.

5.2.4 How a Texas A&M hazing case might proceed for a South Carolina family

For a South Carolina family pursuing a hazing case originating from Texas A&M in College Station, the judicial process would primarily occur in Texas courts, typically in Brazos County. This means legal strategies must align with Texas state law and local court procedures.

Potential defendants would vary based on the specifics of the incident. They could include individual students involved in the hazing, the local chapter (whether Greek or Corps-affiliated), the national Greek organization, and potentially Texas A&M University or its governing Board of Regents. Suing a public university like A&M often involves navigating sovereign immunity, which protects state entities from certain lawsuits unless specific waivers or exceptions (such as those for gross negligence or Title IX violations) apply. Experienced attorneys would focus on uncovering evidence of the university’s knowledge of prior hazing within the specific organization, its enforcement (or lack thereof) of anti-hazing policies, and any systemic failures in oversight. For South Carolina families, managing communications and legal processes across state lines would be streamlined by a Texas-based law firm that understands both local legal nuances and the unique culture of Texas A&M.

5.2.5 What Texas A&M students and parents should do

If you are a student at Texas A&M, or a South Carolina parent with a child attending the university in College Station:

• Educate Yourself on A&M Traditions: Distinguish between harmless traditions and those that cross into hazing. Understand that even “sacred” traditions are illegal if they endanger health or humiliate.
• Utilize Corps Resources: If your child is in the Corps, they have specific reporting channels. Ensure they know these routes and feel safe using them.
• Document Everything Thoroughly: Preserve all digital evidence—texts, images, social media posts—and record details of conversations or incidents. This evidence is crucial for any investigation or legal action.
• Seek Medical and Psychological Support: Document all injuries, both physical and psychological. Medical records are vital.
• Contact an Expert Hazing Attorney Immediately: For South Carolina families, coordinating with a Texas-based firm like Attorney911 is critical. We can provide guidance on A&M’s specific policies, Texas hazing laws, and how to navigate the legal process to ensure accountability without compromising your family’s rights.

5.3 University of Texas at Austin (UT)

The University of Texas at Austin stands as another major institution that attracts a significant number of students from South Carolina, renowned for its diverse academic programs and vibrant capital city culture. Despite its progressive stance on transparency, UT Austin has a documented history of hazing incidents across various student organizations, underscoring the universal nature of this problem.

5.3.1 Campus & culture snapshot at UT Austin

The University of Texas at Austin, a flagship institution nestled in the heart of Texas’s capital, is a magnet for top talent, drawing students from all 50 states and over 100 countries, including many ambitious young minds from South Carolina. Known for its academic prowess, vibrant music scene, and fervent Longhorn spirit, UT Austin offers a quintessential large university experience. Its Greek system is extensive and highly visible, comprising a multitude of fraternities and sororities with active social calendars. Beyond Greek life, UT is home to countless student organizations, including athletic clubs, spirit groups like the Texas Cowboys, and various academic and cultural associations. This dynamic environment, while enriching, also presents a complex social landscape where traditional pressures can sometimes devolve into hazing, a concern for parents from places like Greenville or Charleston accustomed to robust campus oversight.

5.3.2 Official hazing policy & reporting channels at UT Austin

The University of Texas at Austin maintains an unequivocal stance against hazing, clearly defining it as any intentional, knowing, or reckless act that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation, affiliation, or continued membership in an organization. This robust policy applies to all university-affiliated groups, on or off campus.

UT Austin is notable for its commitment to transparency regarding hazing violations. The university provides multiple avenues for reporting:

• The Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity: The central authority for investigating and adjudicating hazing allegations.
• University of Texas Police Department (UTPD): For criminal acts related to hazing or immediate safety concerns.
• Anonymous Online Reporting System: A secure platform that allows individuals to submit reports without revealing their identity, accessible via the university’s “Stop Hazing” webpage.
• Hazing Violations Public Log: UT Austin stands out by publicly maintaining a detailed log of all hazing violations, including the names of organizations, dates of incidents, a description of the conduct, and the sanctions imposed. This publicly accessible database, available at hazing.utexas.edu, is an invaluable resource for prospective South Carolina students and their parents, offering clear insights into organizations’ histories.

5.3.3 Selected documented incidents & responses at UT Austin

UT Austin’s public Hazing Violations page provides a transparent, albeit concerning, record of numerous incidents, offering South Carolina families a clear view of ongoing challenges at the university. This level of transparency, while commendable, also highlights the persistent nature of hazing despite clear policies.

• Pi Kappa Alpha (2023): The university cited this fraternity for hazing after new members were directed to consume milk and perform strenuous calisthenics, activities deemed to endanger their health. The chapter was placed on probation and mandated to implement new hazing-prevention education, indicating that even seemingly “mild” activities can be classified as hazing.
• Texas Cowboys (2018): Following a tragic incident where a new member died in a car accident, the university investigated and found significant hazing activities, including sleep deprivation—a common form of psychological and physical hazing. The organization, a highly visible spirit group, was suspended. This case underscored that hazing is not limited to Greek life but extends to tradition-rich, non-Greek organizations.
• Other repeated violations: The public log frequently shows various fraternities, sororities, and even spirit groups (like the Texas Wranglers) disciplined for a range of hazing activities, including forced workouts, alcohol-related hazing, and punishment-based practices. These range from minor policy violations to severe incidents.

UT Austin’s transparency around these issues is a double-edged sword: it offers crucial information for parents and potential legal cases by demonstrating a pattern of neglect or ineffective enforcement, but it also reflects a continuous battle against entrenched hazing cultures.

5.3.4 How a UT Austin hazing case might proceed for a South Carolina family

For a South Carolina family whose child attends UT Austin and experiences hazing, the legal process will be primarily governed by Texas law and handled in courts located in Travis County, where Austin is situated. This means navigating the Texas legal system will be paramount.

Potential defendants in such a case could include the individual students involved in the hazing, the local chapter of the fraternity or sorority, the national organization, and possibly the University of Texas at Austin itself. As a public institution, UT Austin may invoke sovereign immunity, but seasoned attorneys understand the exceptions, particularly concerning gross negligence, repeated policy failures, or Title IX violations. A key advantage in a UT Austin case is the university’s publicly accessible Hazing Violations Log. This resource can provide powerful evidence of prior warnings, known hazing patterns within specific organizations, and the university’s response—or lack thereof—to past incidents. This documented history can be crucial for establishing foreseeability and supporting claims of institutional liability. Coordinating with a Texas-based law firm is essential for South Carolina families to effectively leverage this information and navigate the local legal landscape.

5.3.5 What UT Austin students and parents should do

For students at the University of Texas at Austin and their parents in South Carolina, proactive steps are vital if hazing is suspected or occurs:

• Consult the UT Hazing Log: Review UT Austin’s public Hazing Violations Log (hazing.utexas.edu) to understand an organization’s history. This resource is exceptionally helpful for parents during recruitment periods.
• Utilize UT Reporting Mechanisms: Report incidents through the Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity or UTPD. The anonymous online system is an option, but for legal purposes, a documented report is often more effective.
• Save Digital Communications: UT cases often rely heavily on digital evidence. Students should preserve text messages, group chats, images, and videos. This documentation can be pivotal for establishing a clear timeline and proving elements of hazing.
• Seek Immediate Legal Counsel: Contact a specialized firm like Attorney911 familiar with Texas hazing laws and UT Austin’s administrative processes. We can act quickly to ensure evidence is legally preserved and guide your family on the best course of action. This is particularly important for South Carolina families needing expert guidance in a different state’s legal system.

5.4 Southern Methodist University (SMU)

Southern Methodist University (SMU), a prestigious private institution in Dallas, Texas, holds a strong appeal for many South Carolina students seeking a rigorous academic environment and a vibrant social scene. However, like many universities with prominent Greek systems, SMU has faced its own challenges with hazing, which warrants careful consideration from prospective students and their families.

5.4.1 Campus & culture snapshot at SMU

Southern Methodist University (SMU) is a private, selective university located in Dallas, Texas, with a national reputation for academic excellence, particularly in business, law, and the arts. Students from sophisticated communities across South Carolina are often drawn to SMU for its beautiful campus, smaller class sizes compared to public universities, and strong alumni network. The social culture at SMU is largely shaped by its prominent Greek life, with a high percentage of students participating in fraternities and sororities. These organizations play a central role in campus social events and student leadership. Beyond Greek life, SMU boasts a wide array of student groups, competitive athletics, and a strong emphasis on community service. This dynamic, and often exclusive, social environment can sometimes create conditions ripe for hazing, a concern that South Carolina families might address when evaluating SMU.

5.4.2 Official hazing policy & reporting channels at SMU

Southern Methodist University maintains a strict anti-hazing policy, emphasizing a zero-tolerance stance towards any activity that could be construed as hazing. As a private institution, SMU’s policies are often detailed and rigorously enforced to protect its reputation and student welfare. Its policy explicitly prohibits any act that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student, or that subjects a student to humiliation or abuse, for the purpose of initiation or affiliation with any university organization. This covers actions occurring both on and off campus.

SMU provides several reporting channels through which hazing incidents can be brought to the university’s attention:

• Office of Student Conduct & Community Standards: This office is responsible for investigating hazing allegations and initiating disciplinary proceedings against individuals and organizations.
• SMU Police Department: For incidents involving criminal behavior or immediate safety concerns.
• Anonymous Hotline/Reporting Forms: SMU offers confidential reporting options, including an online form or a dedicated hotline, allowing students and concerned parties to submit information without fear of direct confrontation.
• Real Response: SMU encourages students to use this text-based reporting platform as a quick and discreet way to communicate concerns about hazing or harassment directly to university officials.

SMU is committed to thorough investigations and applying appropriate sanctions, which can range from probation to suspension or permanent expulsion for student organizations or individuals found responsible for hazing.

5.4.3 Selected documented incidents & responses at SMU

SMU’s history, like many universities with strong Greek systems, includes documented hazing incidents that highlight the persistent nature of the problem, despite university policies.

• Kappa Alpha Order (2017): This incident garnered significant attention when the Kappa Alpha Order fraternity was suspended by SMU after an investigation revealed widespread hazing. Reports indicated that new members were subjected to paddling, forced alcohol consumption, and significant sleep deprivation. The chapter faced sanctions that included immediate suspension and restrictions on recruiting for several years. This event exposed the deep-seated issues within the organization’s culture despite ongoing university efforts.
• Other fraternities and sororities: Throughout the years, various SMU Greek-letter organizations have faced disciplinary action for hazing violations detailed in university reports. These range from forced servitude and demeaning tasks to more severe physical endurance activities and excessive drinking. While SMU, as a private university, may not maintain a public hazing log as detailed as UT Austin’s, internal disciplinary records are generated and serve as critical documentation for any subsequent legal action.

These recurring incidents demonstrate that hazing, even within institutions that highly value reputation and student well-being, remains a significant challenge, requiring continuous vigilance and proactive intervention.

5.4.4 How an SMU hazing case might proceed for a South Carolina family

For a South Carolina family navigating a hazing incident at Southern Methodist University (SMU), the legal process would unfold in Texas courts, specifically within Dallas County. As a private institution, SMU generally does not benefit from sovereign immunity, which public universities sometimes invoke. This can simplify certain aspects of litigation, as the university does not have the same level of legal protection against lawsuits.

Potential defendants in an SMU hazing case could include the individual students directly involved, the local chapter, the national Greek organization, and SMU itself. A legal strategy against SMU would focus on its institutional liability, examining whether the university:

• Was aware of prior hazing within the offending organization (through internal complaints or prior disciplinary actions).
• Failed to adequately enforce its published anti-hazing policies.
• Provided sufficient oversight for student organizations.
• Ignored red flags or reports of misconduct.

While SMU may not have a public online log of hazing violations like UT Austin, internal records of disciplinary actions are crucial. These documents would be sought through legal discovery in a lawsuit, providing evidence of the university’s knowledge and response to past incidents. For South Carolina families, collaboration with a Texas-based law firm experienced in private university litigation would be essential to leverage local legal expertise while navigating the complexities of an out-of-state case.

5.4.5 What SMU students and parents should do

If you are an SMU student or a South Carolina parent whose child attends Southern Methodist University, and hazing is a concern:

• Know SMU’s Reporting Options: Familiarize yourself with SMU’s anonymous hotline and online reporting forms, as well as the Office of Student Conduct. Early reporting can trigger university-level investigations.
• Preserve All Evidence: Given SMU’s private status, transparency around past incidents can be less public than at state universities. Therefore, personal documentation (screenshots, photos, witness contacts) becomes even more critical for building a case.
• Seek Support During Investigations: University investigations can be complex. Students should seek support from trusted adults or legal counsel when cooperating with official inquiries to ensure their rights are protected.
• Consult Legal Experts: Contact Attorney911 immediately for guidance tailored to private university settings. Our team can help South Carolina families understand their options under Texas law and pursue accountability against both individuals and the institution, ensuring that SMU’s policies are not merely performative but effectively enforced.

5.5 Baylor University

Baylor University, a private Baptist research university in Waco, Texas, attracts a diverse student body, including those from South Carolina, drawn to its strong academic programs and values-based education. However, the institution’s commitment to community and tradition has also been challenged by incidents of hazing, which require close attention from parents and students.

5.5.1 Campus & culture snapshot at Baylor

Baylor University, situated in Waco, Texas, is a nationally recognized private Christian university, known for its challenging academics, spirited athletic programs (especially football), and a campus culture deeply rooted in its Baptist heritage. It draws a significant number of students from across the country, including those from South Carolina, who are often seeking a values-driven education within a supportive community environment. Baylor’s Greek life is active, offering diverse fraternities and sororities that contribute to the social fabric, though their prominence is balanced by numerous other faith-based and academic organizations. The university prides itself on fostering a close-knit community, but this same environment, when unchecked, can sometimes lead to insular group dynamics where hazing practices might develop, posing a quiet concern for South Carolina families.

5.5.2 Official hazing policy & reporting channels at Baylor

Baylor University maintains a strong policy unequivocally condemning hazing, defining it broadly to include any act that endangers mental or physical health for the purpose of initiation, admission into, affiliation with, or continued membership in any university organization. Baylor’s commitment to a safe campus environment is particularly emphasized given its faith-based mission and prior experiences with institutional misconduct.

Baylor provides multiple accessible channels for reporting hazing incidents:

• Office of Student Conduct: This office is the central body for receiving, investigating, and adjudicating all hazing allegations, imposing disciplinary actions for individuals and organizations found responsible.
• Baylor University Police Department (BUPD): For any situations involving criminal conduct related to hazing or when there is an immediate threat to safety.
• Baylor EthicsPoint: An anonymous reporting system available 24/7 online or via a toll-free phone number, allowing for confidential submission of concerns about hazing or other policy violations.
• Division of Student Life: Staff within this division, including residence hall directors, professional chaplains, and other student support personnel, are trained to receive and respond to hazing reports.
  Baylor’s policies underscore its “zero tolerance” for hazing, with disciplinary actions ranging from organizational suspension to permanent revocation of recognition for repeat or severe violations.

5.5.3 Selected documented incidents & responses at Baylor

Baylor University’s commitment to holding its student organizations accountable for hazing has been tested by various incidents, particularly within its high-profile athletic programs.

• Baylor Baseball Hazing (2020): This incident led to the suspension of 14 baseball players after an internal investigation uncovered hazing activities within the team. The suspensions were staggered across the early season, highlighting the university’s attempt to address misconduct while minimizing disruption. The nature of the hazing was not fully detailed publicly, but the significant number of players involved and the disciplinary action underscored a serious breach of university policy and values.
• Rape and Sexual Assault Scandal (mid-2010s): While not exclusively hazing, Baylor experienced a major institutional crisis involving alleged widespread mishandling of sexual assault cases, particularly within its football program. This scandal led to the firing of top administrators, including the president and head football coach, and forced a complete overhaul of its Title IX and student conduct processes. This broader context is crucial because it showed a systemic failure in student oversight and a willingness to protect powerful programs, which can create environments where hazing also thrives unchecked.

These episodes demonstrate Baylor’s ongoing struggle to align its espoused values with the lived experiences of all its students, a challenge often compounded by the pressures of collegiate athletics and Greek life.

5.5.4 How a Baylor hazing case might proceed for a South Carolina family

For a South Carolina family whose child experiences hazing at Baylor University, a private institution, the legal path would generally involve litigation in Texas state courts, specifically in McLennan County where Waco is located. Unlike public universities, Baylor does not enjoy sovereign immunity, which can offer greater direct legal recourse against the university itself.

A civil lawsuit in this context would likely name individual students, the local chapter, the national organization, and Baylor University as defendants. The legal strategy would critically evaluate Baylor’s institutional response to prior hazing incidents, the effectiveness of its “zero tolerance” policies, and any potential failures in supervision or investigation. Given Baylor’s past Title IX and student misconduct scandals, particularly those related to its football program, attorneys would scrutinize any evidence of systemic neglect or a culture that permitted abuse. This prior history can be highly relevant to establishing that the university had knowledge of a high-risk environment and failed to act. For South Carolina families, partnering with a Texas-based law firm familiar with private university litigation and Baylor’s specific institutional dynamics would be crucial to successfully navigate the legal complexities and pursue robust accountability.

5.5.5 What Baylor students and parents should do

If you are a student at Baylor University or a South Carolina parent with a child attending the university:

• Understand Baylor’s Values: While Baylor emphasizes its values, critically assess if organizational conduct aligns with these principles. If hazing occurs, pointing to the university’s own stated values can strengthen your report.
• Use Anonymous Reporting Systems: Baylor’s EthicsPoint system offers a confidential way to report concerns without immediate fear of reprisal. Documenting the report number is important for tracking.
• Prioritize Evidence Collection: Because Baylor is a private institution, transparency on past incidents may be less formalized than at public universities. Therefore, capturing and preserving your own evidence (digital, medical, witness information) is paramount.
• Seek External Legal Counsel Promptly: Given Baylor’s past institutional challenges, it is especially important to contact an experienced hazing attorney immediately. Attorney911 can help South Carolina families ensure that the university’s internal processes are fair and that all legal options are explored under Texas law to achieve full accountability.

5.6 Summary for South Carolina Families

As we’ve seen across the University of Houston, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor, hazing remains a pervasive issue despite clear policies and, in some cases, prior institutional failures. For South Carolina families, sending a child to any of these esteemed Texas universities means entrusting them to an environment where vigilance and prompt action are essential.

While each institution has its unique culture and specific reporting mechanisms, the underlying risks of hazing—whether alcohol-related, physical, psychological, or digital—are universal. The cases highlighted demonstrate a recurring theme: hazing often continues until a severe incident forces a spotlight, usually followed by legal action. This is why understanding Texas hazing law, recognizing the subtle and overt signs of abuse, and knowing who can be held accountable are so vital. Attorney911 stands ready to apply this deep understanding to advocate for South Carolina families impacted by hazing incidents at any Texas university.

FRATERNITIES & SORORITIES: CAMPUS-SPECIFIC + NATIONAL HISTORIES

For South Carolina families grappling with hazing, understanding the connection between a local chapter and its national organization is crucial. The major universities in Texas—UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, and Baylor—host numerous fraternities and sororities, many of which are part of large national systems. The national histories of these organizations with hazing incidents are highly relevant to legal strategy, as they can reveal patterns of negligence and foreseeability.

6.1 Why national histories matter

When hazing occurs at a local chapter, it’s rarely an isolated anomaly. Most fraternities and sororities operating at universities like Clemson, the University of South Carolina, or anywhere in Texas, are cogs in much larger national organizations. These national entities are typically sophisticated operations with:

• Extensive anti-hazing polices and risk management manuals: These documents are often well-crafted precisely because national HQs have seen numerous deaths, catastrophic injuries, and multi-million-dollar lawsuits across their chapters over decades.
• Knowledge of recurring hazing patterns: National organizations are, or should be, aware of common hazing “scripts”—forced drinking rituals, paddling traditions, humiliating “pledge tasks”—that are replicated across different chapters.

This historical knowledge means that when a Texas chapter repeats a dangerous script that previously led to injury or death at another chapter in another state, it significantly strengthens arguments for foreseeability and can support claims of negligence or even punitive damages against the national entity. Their argument of “we didn’t know” or “it was a rogue chapter” becomes much harder to sustain if a pattern of similar incidents exists across their national system.

6.2 Organization mapping (synthesized)

While it’s impossible to list every fraternity and sorority chapter at every Texas university, certain organizations have a well-documented history of national hazing incidents, making them particularly relevant for South Carolina families to be aware of. The patterns established by these national organizations can have direct implications for local chapters at schools like UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, and Baylor.

Here are examples of some prominent fraternities and sororities with nationally known hazing issues that often have chapters at these and other Texas universities:

• Pi Kappa Alpha (Pike): Known for its “Big/Little” event, where pledges are often forced to consume large amounts of alcohol. Nationally, Pike has faced devastating consequences, most notably in the Stone Foltz death at Bowling Green State University (2021), where Foltz died from alcohol poisoning after being forced to drink a handle of liquor. This resulted in criminal convictions and a $7 million settlement from the national fraternity. Another case includes David Bogenberger at Northern Illinois University (2012), who also died from alcohol poisoning after a fraternity event.
• Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE): Often controversially dubbed “America’s deadliest fraternity” by some media outlets, SAE has a national history checkered with hazing-related deaths and severe injuries, many involving alcohol. Recent lawsuits include a traumatic brain injury suit at the University of Alabama and allegations of chemical burns at Texas A&M (around 2021), where industrial cleaner was poured on pledges. Even in Texas, a UT Austin chapter faced a lawsuit in January 2024 for an alleged assault on an exchange student during a party. In 2014, SAE nationally changed its policy to ban pledging and moved to a “true membership” model in response to its long hazing history, though incidents have continued.
• Phi Delta Theta: Gained tragic national notoriety with the death of Max Gruver at Louisiana State University (2017). Max died with a BAC of 0.495% after participating in a “Bible study” drinking game where he was forced to consume alcohol whenever he answered a question incorrectly. This case led to criminal convictions and inspired the Max Gruver Act in Louisiana.
• Pi Kappa Phi: This fraternity also carries a tragic national history, including the death of Andrew Coffey at Florida State University (2017), who died from acute alcohol poisoning during a “Big Brother Night.” Most recently, in late 2025, Attorney911 filed a $10 million lawsuit against Pi Kappa Phi (among other defendants) following the severe injuries suffered by Leonel Bermudez at the University of Houston’s Beta Nu chapter.
• Kappa Alpha Order (KA): Has faced numerous hazing accusations and suspensions across the country, often involving alcohol and degrading rituals. For instance, the SMU chapter of KA was suspended in 2017 following reports of paddling, forced drinking, and sleep deprivation.
• Sigma Chi: While not always leading to fatalities, Sigma Chi chapters have faced significant hazing litigation. For instance, a chapter at the College of Charleston settled for more than $10 million in 2024 for severe physical and psychological torment endured by a pledge. A University of Texas at Arlington chapter also faced a lawsuit for alcohol poisoning.

This pattern of recurring incidents across states and within national organizations demonstrates a systemic issue. These national hazing histories are not just distant events; they form a crucial part of the legal context for any hazing claim involving a Texas chapter, including the ones located near South Carolina families.

6.3 Tie back to legal strategy

Understanding the national history of hazing within a fraternity or sorority is not merely academic; it forms a cornerstone of a robust legal strategy for affected South Carolina families. This historical context allows experienced attorneys to demonstrate a crucial legal concept: foreseeability.

When a national organization has been repeatedly involved in similar hazing incidents across different chapters—whether in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Texas—it becomes increasingly difficult for them to claim ignorance or argue that a particular incident was an “unforeseeable accident.” Courts can consider whether the national organization:

• Meaningfully enforced its anti-hazing policies: Did they just have policies on paper, or did they actively monitor, investigate, and punish violations? A history of lax enforcement can be damning.
• Responded to prior incidents aggressively enough: Were past violations met with severe enough sanctions to deter future hazing, or were consequences light, implicitly condoning continued misconduct?
• Had actual or constructive notice of hazing patterns: Emails, internal reports, media coverage, and previous lawsuits all contribute to the national’s knowledge base. If similar hazing “scripts” appear repeatedly, they are on notice of a systemic problem.

This evidence directly impacts:

• Settlement leverage: A strong case built on national patterns puts immense pressure on national organizations and their insurers to settle, as they face significant risk at trial.
• Insurance coverage disputes: Insurers often try to deny coverage by claiming hazing was an “intentional act” or “unforeseeable.” Documented national patterns help argue that the hazing was a foreseeable result of negligent oversight, which can be covered by insurance policies.
• Potential for punitive damages: When national organizations are shown to have acted with gross negligence or reckless disregard for student safety, punitive damages (designed to punish and deter) may be awarded, significantly increasing the financial stakes.

By meticulously researching and presenting this national history, attorneys can transform what might appear to be a local incident into evidence of a systemic institutional failure, significantly strengthening the victim’s case for accountability and compensation.

BUILDING A CASE: EVIDENCE, DAMAGES, STRATEGY

For South Carolina families facing the aftermath of hazing, understanding the intricate process of building a legal case is paramount. A successful hazing lawsuit is not merely about retelling an unfortunate event; it’s a sophisticated undertaking that requires meticulous evidence collection, a deep understanding of legal damages, and a strategic approach that anticipates the defenses of powerful institutions.

7.1 Evidence

Evidence is the backbone of any hazing case. In 2025, the most compelling evidence often comes from digital sources, reflecting the pervasive role technology plays in students’ lives. Collecting and preserving this evidence immediately after an incident is critically important, as it can disappear rapidly. For South Carolina families, the clock starts ticking the moment hazing is suspected.

• Digital communications: Group chats and direct messages (DMs) are now the single most important source of hazing evidence. Platforms like GroupMe (the most common for Greek life), WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, iMessage/SMS group texts, and Discord servers can reveal planning, peer pressure, instructions, and discussions before, during, and after hazing events. This also includes fraternity/sorority-specific apps used for internal communication. The key is to screenshot entire threads immediately, ensuring sender names, profile pictures, and timestamps are visible. Even deleted messages can sometimes be recovered through digital forensics, but original screenshots are always preferred.
• Photos & videos: Visual evidence captured on smartphones is incredibly powerful. This includes:
  • Content filmed by members: Often, hazing is recorded by participants themselves, either for “memories,” intimidation, or as proof of “loyalty.”
  • Footage shared in group chats: Videos or photos passed around privately can prove the extent and nature of the hazing.
  • Publicly posted content: Even if seemingly innocent, social media posts (Instagram stories, TikToks, Snapchat) might inadvertently show hazing activities, locations, or participants.
  • Security camera footage: Surveillance cameras at fraternity houses, university buildings, or nearby businesses can capture arrivals, departures, or activities. Ring/doorbell camera footage from private residences involved in hazing can also be invaluable.
• Internal organization documents: These provide direct insight into how organizations operate and whether hazing is embedded in their “traditions.” This can include pledge manuals, initiation scripts, “tradition” lists, emails/texts from officers detailing forthcoming “pledge activities,” and national anti-hazing policies meant to be disseminated to chapters. These documents demonstrate organizational expectations and, sometimes, explicit instructions for hazing.
• University records: Universities generate extensive records that can be vital. These include:
  • Prior conduct files: Records of previous hazing violations, probation, suspensions, or warnings issued to the same organization or individual members.
  • Campus police incident reports: Any prior reports of disturbances, alcohol violations, or other misconduct related to the organization.
  • Clery reports: The Annual Security Report, mandated by the Clery Act, can show patterns of crime and alcohol/drug violations at the university.
  • Title IX complaints: If the hazing involved sexual harassment or assault, Title IX records can be relevant.
    These records can often be obtained through legal discovery or, in the case of public universities, through Public Information Act (FOIA equivalent) requests.
• Medical and psychological records: Documentation of injuries and psychological trauma is paramount. This includes:
  • Emergency room and hospitalization records: Detailing diagnosis, treatment, and initial assessment of injuries.
  • Pathology and toxicology reports: Crucial in cases of alcohol or drug poisoning, or unexplained death.
  • Specialist notes: Records from surgeons, physical therapists, neurologists (for brain injuries), or gastroenterologists (for internal injuries).
  • Psychological evaluations: Diagnoses of PTSD, depression, anxiety, or other mental health impacts from therapists or psychiatrists, substantiating emotional distress.
• Witness testimony: The accounts of individuals who observed the hazing or its aftermath are critical. This includes other pledges, current or former members, roommates, Resident Assistants (RAs), coaches, trainers, or even bystanders. Former members who quit or were expelled for opposing hazing can be particularly powerful witnesses.

7.2 Damages

When hazing leaves a student, or their family, facing severe physical injury, psychological trauma, or wrongful death, the legal system aims to provide compensation for these profound losses. For South Carolina families, understanding the types of damages that can be claimed is essential, though it’s crucial to remember that each case’s value is unique and depends on specific facts.

• Medical bills & future care: This covers all costs associated with physical injuries. Initially, this includes emergency room visits, ambulance transport, and hospitalization (including ICU stays and surgical procedures). For long-term recovery, it extends to ongoing physical or occupational therapy, prescription medications, necessary medical equipment, and future treatments. In catastrophic cases, such as brain injuries or organ damage, this may involve complex “life care plans” – detailed projections of all future medical, personal care, and therapeutic needs over the victim’s lifetime, costing millions.
• Lost earnings / educational impact: Hazing incidents can severely derail a student’s academic and career path. This category of damages addresses:
  • Lost wages: Income lost if the student or a parent (who must care for the child) is unable to work.
  • Lost educational opportunities: This includes the cost of tuition and fees for semesters missed or dropped. It also accounts for the loss of academic or athletic scholarships, delayed graduation, and the subsequent delay in entering the professional workforce.
  • Reduced earning capacity: If injuries (e.g., severe brain damage, chronic PTSD, permanent physical disabilities) result in a lifelong impairment affecting the victim’s ability to work, forensic economists calculate the projected loss of lifetime earnings.
• Non-economic damages: These compensate for intangible losses that are highly personal but deeply impactful:
  • Physical pain and suffering: This covers the acute pain from injuries (such as broken bones, burns, internal trauma) and any chronic pain from permanent conditions. It also encompasses the “loss of physical abilities,” meaning the inability to engage in favored activities like sports or hobbies without pain.
  • Emotional distress, trauma, & humiliation: Hazing inflicts profound psychological harm. Damages can cover diagnosed conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety, panic attacks, and even suicidal ideation or attempts. Beyond clinical diagnoses, it includes the subjective experience of humiliation, shame, fear, nightmares, flashbacks, and a deep loss of dignity.
  • Loss of enjoyment of life: This refers to the diminished capacity to experience joy and participate fully in life’s activities. This can manifest as withdrawal from social life, an inability to enjoy past hobbies, or the inability to pursue educational or career goals.
• Wrongful death damages (for families): In the most tragic outcomes, when hazing leads to a student’s death, Texas law allows qualifying family members (spouse, children, and parents) to seek damages. These include:
  • Funeral and burial costs: Direct expenses associated with the victim’s burial or cremation.
  • Loss of financial support: Compensation for the financial contributions the deceased would have made to the family over their lifetime.
  • Loss of companionship, love, and society: This is a deeply personal form of damages, compensating for the profound emotional void left by the deceased’s absence.
  • Grief and emotional suffering: Recognition of the immense sorrow and mental anguish experienced by the surviving family members.
  • Loss of guidance and counsel: Particularly relevant for parents and siblings who relied on the deceased for advice, mentorship, or emotional support.
  • Mental health treatment: Costs for therapy or counseling for family members suffering from the traumatic loss.
• Punitive damages: In cases where defendants acted with extreme recklessness, willful negligence, or malicious intent, punitive damages may be awarded. These are not meant to compensate the victim but to punish the responsible parties and deter similar conduct in the future. In Texas, punitive damages are available but often capped unless the conduct is particularly egregious, such as gross negligence or intentional torts.

The recovery process is complex, often involving settlements to provide victims and families with vital resources for recovery while avoiding the unpredictable nature of a trial.

7.3 Role of different defendants and insurance coverage

In hazing litigation, an intricate web of defendants often comes into play, each potentially holding a piece of the liability. For South Carolina families, understanding this dynamic – particularly the role of insurance – is crucial.

• Identifying all defendants: A comprehensive legal strategy identifies every party that might bear responsibility. This generally includes:
  • Individual students: Those directly involved in the hazing act.
  • The local chapter: The specific fraternity, sorority, or organization.
  • The national organization: The larger entity that charters the local chapter.
  • The university: The institution itself.
  • Third parties: Such as landlords of off-campus properties, event organizers, or even alcohol vendors.
• The critical role of insurance: Each of these defendants likely holds insurance policies designed to cover legal liabilities.
  • National fraternities carry substantial general liability and excess policies.
  • Universities, particularly private ones, have extensive commercial general liability (CGL) and umbrella policies. Public universities (like the University of South Carolina or Clemson) operate under different frameworks, some with self-insurance pools or statutory caps on public entity liability.
  • Individual members may have coverage under their parents’ homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policies, which can sometimes extend to personal liability for negligent acts.
• Navigating exclusions and disputes: Insurance companies, however, are businesses, and they will often try to limit their payout. Common tactics involve:
  • “Intentional acts” exclusions: Arguing that hazing, especially if physical, is an intentional act not covered by the policy.
  • “Criminal acts” exclusions: Similar to intentional acts, if hazing leads to criminal charges, insurers may deny coverage.
  • “Hazing exclusions”: Some policies explicitly exclude coverage for acts defined as hazing.
  • Coverage disputes: Insurers for different defendants may dispute who is primarily responsible, leading to delays.
• How experienced hazing lawyers prevail: Attorneys specializing in hazing cases understand these insurance tactics intimately. They know how to:
  • Frame the claim: Argue that while the physical act might be intentional, the organization’s negligent supervision or failure to enforce policies (which led to the incident) is covered by the policy.
  • Force a defense: Typically, insurers have a duty to defend their policyholders once a lawsuit is filed, even if they later dispute coverage. This forces them to bear litigation costs.
  • Negotiate strategically: Leverage the full extent of all available policies to reach a comprehensive settlement.
  • Pursue bad faith claims: If an insurer wrongfully denies coverage, attorneys can pursue additional claims for bad faith against the insurance company.

This complex interplay of defendants, legal arguments, and insurance policies requires a nuanced and aggressive approach. Lupe Peña, an Attorney911 partner, brings critical insight to this process as a former insurance defense attorney. She knows these defense playbooks inside and out, providing an invaluable advantage in forcing accountability from powerful insurers.

PRACTICAL GUIDES & FAQS

Hazing can be a deeply isolating and confusing experience for students and terrifying for parents. When facing such a crisis, access to clear, actionable guidance is paramount. This section provides immediate, practical advice for parents, students, and witnesses in South Carolina, helping to navigate the emotional and legal complexities of hazing.

8.1 For parents: Recognizing & responding to hazing

For parents in South Carolina, the first step is often recognizing the subtle, yet alarming, signs of hazing. Early detection can be crucial in preventing escalation and seeking help.

• Warning signs of hazing: Pay close attention to changes in your child’s behavior.
  • Unexplained injuries or frequent “accidents,” especially if your child is vague or inconsistent about how they occurred.
  • Sudden exhaustion or extreme sleep deprivation, with reports of constant late-night “mandatory” events.
  • Drastic changes in mood, such as increased anxiety, irritability, depression, or withdrawal from friends and family in South Carolina.
  • Secrecy surrounding organizational activities, often accompanied by phrases like “I can’t talk about it” or “It’s a secret.”
  • Constant phone use for group chats, especially if your child appears fearful or anxious about missing “mandatory” communications.
• How to talk to your child: Approach the topic with empathy and without judgment.
  • Ask open-ended questions like, “How are things really going in the organization?” or “Is there anything that makes you uncomfortable?”
  • Emphasize that their safety and well-being are paramount, far outweighing any social status or organizational membership.
  • Reassure them of your unconditional support, making it clear you will help them, no matter the consequences from the group.
• If your child is hurt: Your immediate priority is to ensure their safety and well-being.
  • Get them medical care immediately, even for seemingly minor injuries or if they appear highly intoxicated. Be sure to inform medical personnel that the injuries are hazing-related for proper documentation.
  • Document everything: Take clear photos of all injuries from multiple angles and at different stages of healing. Write down what your child tells you, including dates, times, locations, and names of those involved. Screenshot all relevant texts and communications.
  • Save names, dates, and locations: Any identifying information about the incident or participants is valuable.
• Dealing with the university: Approach university administrators strategically and with documentation.
  • Document every communication: Keep a log of all emails, phone calls, and meetings with university staff.
  • Ask about prior incidents: Inquire specifically about any past hazing violations involving the same organization and what actions the school took in response. This information is crucial for establishing patterns or institutional negligence.
• When to talk to a lawyer: Early legal consultation is vital for South Carolina families.
  • If your child has suffered significant physical or psychological harm.
  • If you feel the university or organization is minimizing the incident, concealing information, or attempting to protect its own reputation at the expense of your child’s well-being. An attorney can help validate your concerns and guide your next steps effectively.

8.2 For students / pledges

If you are a student or pledge in South Carolina who suspects or is experiencing hazing, remember that your safety and well-being are paramount. You have rights and options, and you do not have to endure harmful rituals in silence.

• Is this hazing or just tradition? Ask yourself tough questions. If you feel unsafe, humiliated, demeaned, or coerced into doing something you don’t want to do; if you’re forced to drink alcohol or partake in illegal substances; if you’re experiencing physical pain or extreme exhaustion; or if the activity must be hidden from outsiders, administrators, or your family—then it is hazing. Tradition should never involve physical or psychological harm.
• Why “consent” isn’t the end of the story: Many organizations claim pledges “consented” to hazing. However, under the intense peer pressure, desire for acceptance, and inherent power dynamics in these situations, genuine consent is often impossible. The law, particularly in Texas, supports this view, explicitly stating that consent is not a defense to hazing. You cannot consent to be criminally hazed.
• Exiting and reporting safely: You have the legal right to leave any organization at any time without fear of retribution, despite what you may have been told.
  • Prioritize your safety. If you are in immediate danger, call 911.
  • Inform a trusted adult (parent, RA, professor, counselor) about your decision to leave and your reasons, especially if you fear retaliation.
  • Report privately or anonymously. Use campus reporting channels or anonymous hotlines like 1-888-NOT-HAZE.
  • Keep all communications. Screenshot any messages (texts, DMs) threatening you or discussing your exit.
• Good-faith reporting and amnesty: Many university policies and state laws (including in Texas) offer protections for students who report hazing or call for medical help in an emergency. These “good samaritan” or “amnesty” policies typically shield students from disciplinary action for minor violations (like underage drinking) if they are seeking help for themselves or another person in crisis. This encourages students to prioritize safety over fear of getting in trouble.

8.3 For former members / witnesses

If you are a former member, an active member, or a witness to hazing, you are in a unique and often difficult position. You may feel conflicted, scared, or even guilty about what you’ve seen or participated in. However, your actions can be pivotal in preventing future harm and holding those responsible accountable.

• Acknowledge your feelings: It’s normal to feel guilt, fear of social ostracization, or even confusion about what you witnessed or participated in. Many former members initially rationalize hazing but later understand its true danger.
• Your testimony is powerful: Your account, especially if corroborated by evidence, can be the key to stopping hazing and preventing another student from being injured or killed. Your insights into the organization’s culture, specific rituals, and the intent behind actions are invaluable.
• You may have legal options: While some witnesses fear repercussions, experienced hazing attorneys can help you understand your legal standing. Depending on your involvement, you might need your own legal advice, but cooperating with an investigation can sometimes mitigate your exposure and prevent more severe consequences.
• Prevent future harm: By coming forward, you contribute to a culture of accountability and can ensure that the harmful practices do not continue, potentially saving lives and sparing other families in South Carolina and beyond from tragic losses.
• Confidential consultation: Contact Attorney911 for a confidential discussion about what you know. We can explain your options, clarify any legal risks you might face, and discuss how your information can be used to build a strong case. Your conversation with our firm is privileged and protected.

8.4 Critical mistakes that can destroy your case

When hazing impacts a family in South Carolina, the emotional turmoil can lead to decisions that inadvertently harm a potential legal case. Attorney911 emphasizes avoiding these common, yet critical, mistakes that can jeopardize a hazing claim.

MISTAKES THAT CAN RUIN YOUR HAZING CASE:

1. Letting your child delete messages or “clean up” evidence:
   • What parents think: “I don’t want them to get in more trouble or face social isolation back in South Carolina.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Deleting evidence not only looks like a cover-up but can also be considered obstruction of justice. It almost always makes building a strong legal case extremely difficult, if not impossible.
   • What to do instead: Preserve everything immediately, even if it’s embarrassing, illegal, or seems minor. Screenshots should be taken of all texts, photos, videos, and social media posts.
2. Confronting the fraternity/sorority directly:
   • What parents think: “I’m going to give them a piece of my mind for what they did to my child.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Direct confrontation will almost certainly cause the organization to immediately lawyer up, destroy any remaining evidence, coach involved members on what to say, and prepare their defenses. This significantly hinders an investigation.
   • What to do instead: Document everything in detail and call a specialized hazing lawyer before any direct contact with the organization.
3. Signing university “release” or “resolution” forms:
   • What universities do: They may push families to sign waivers or “internal resolution” agreements, often implying this is the only or best path to closure.
   • Why it’s wrong: These documents often require you to waive your right to sue or settle for an amount far below the true value of your case before the full extent of damages (especially long-term psychological and medical needs) is known.
   • What to do instead: Absolutely do NOT sign anything from the university or any insurance company without an experienced attorney reviewing it first.
4. Posting details on social media before talking to a lawyer:
   • What families think: “I want people to know what happened to my child to raise awareness back in South Carolina.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Defense attorneys will meticulously comb through your and your child’s social media. Any inconsistencies, even minor ones, can be used to attack credibility, and public posts can inadvertently waive legal privileges or reveal strategic information.
   • What to do instead: Document privately and control information. Let your lawyer manage any public messaging, if necessary, to ensure it doesn’t harm your case.
5. Letting your child go back to “one last meeting” or communicate with the organization:
   • What fraternities say: “Come talk to us before you do anything drastic; let’s resolve this internally.”
   • Why it’s wrong: These meetings are often designed to pressure, intimidate, or extract statements that can be used against your child. They are rarely for genuine resolution once a legal claim is contemplated.
   • What to do instead: Once you are considering legal action, all communication with the organization should be directed through your lawyer.
6. Waiting “to see how the university handles it”:
   • What universities promise: “We’re investigating; let us handle this internally to avoid external disruption.”
   • Why it’s wrong: University investigations are often internal administrative processes that prioritize institutional interests over your child’s legal rights. Evidence disappears, witnesses graduate, and the statute of limitations can run out while you wait.
   • What to do instead: Preserve evidence immediately and consult a lawyer. The university’s process is separate from, and not a substitute for, legal accountability.
7. Talking to insurance adjusters without a lawyer:
   • What adjusters say: “We just need your statement to process the claim quickly.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Adjusters represent the insurance company, not you. Recorded statements can be cherry-picked and used against you. Early settlement offers are typically lowball, before the full extent of damages is known.
   • What to do instead: Politely decline to speak with any adjuster and provide them with your attorney’s contact information.

Remember: these mistakes can critically undermine your ability to seek justice. The best course of action for South Carolina families is to consult with an experienced hazing attorney as early as possible.

8.5 Short FAQ

• “Can I sue a university for hazing in Texas?”
  • Yes, under specific circumstances. Public universities (like the University of Houston, Texas A&M, or UT Austin) benefit from sovereign immunity under Texas law, which can limit lawsuits. However, exceptions exist for cases involving gross negligence, Title IX violations (sexual misconduct or gender discrimination), property claims, or when suing individual employees in their personal capacity. Private universities (such as SMU or Baylor) generally have fewer immunity protections. Every case is unique and depends on specific facts; contact Attorney911 at 1-888-ATTY-911 for a confidential, case-specific analysis.
• “Is hazing a felony in Texas?”
  • Hazing can indeed be a felony in Texas. While by default it’s classified as a Class B misdemeanor (for acts that endanger mental or physical health), it escalates significantly. It becomes a state jail felony if hazing activities result in serious bodily injury or death. Additionally, individuals who are officers of an organization and fail to report hazing can face misdemeanor charges, highlighting the legal responsibility placed on leadership.
• “Can my child bring a case if they ‘agreed’ to the initiation?”
  • Yes, absolutely. Texas Education Code § 37.155 explicitly states that consent is not a defense to prosecution for hazing. The law recognizes that “agreement” under immense peer pressure, fear of social exclusion, and a coercive power imbalance is not truly voluntary consent. This legal provision is critical for protecting victims, even those from South Carolina, from being blamed for their own victimization.
• “How long do we have to file a hazing lawsuit?”
  • In Texas, personal injury lawsuits and wrongful death claims typically have a two-year statute of limitations from the date of the injury or death. However, this period can sometimes be extended by the “discovery rule,” which may apply if the harm or its cause wasn’t immediately known. In cases involving active cover-ups or fraud, the statute might be “tolled” (paused). Importantly, time is critical—evidence disappears, witnesses’ memories fade, and organizations may destroy records. We urge you to call 1-888-ATTY-911 immediately to discuss your specific timeline.
• “What if the hazing happened off-campus or at a private house?”
  • The location of the hazing does not eliminate liability. Many major hazing cases resulting in multi-million-dollar judgments have occurred off-campus, including at private residences, Airbnbs, or remote retreats. Universities and national fraternities can still be held liable based on their sponsorship, knowledge, or foreseeable risk that hazing would occur, regardless of whether it was on their immediate property.
• “Will this be confidential, or will my child’s name be in the news?”
  • The vast majority of hazing cases are resolved through settlements, often with confidentiality agreements that prevent public disclosure of names and terms. If a lawsuit is filed, we can often request sealed court records to protect your family’s privacy. Our priority is to pursue accountability while balancing your family’s need for discretion. Your initial consultation with Attorney911 is always completely confidential.

ABOUT THE MANGINELLO LAW FIRM + CALL TO ACTION

For South Carolina families facing the devastation of hazing, the legal journey to justice requires more than just a lawyer; it demands a legal emergency team. When your child has been harmed by hazing—whether at Clemson, the University of South Carolina, or any institution across Texas—you need advocates who understand how powerful institutions operate and how to force accountability.

9.1 Why Attorney911 for hazing cases

At The Manginello Law Firm / Attorney911, we are the Legal Emergency Lawyers™ for a reason. We bring a unique blend of strategic insight, aggressive advocacy, and compassionate understanding to every hazing case, setting us apart from general personal injury firms. From our Houston headquarters, we serve families throughout Texas, including those from as far as South Carolina, whose lives have been tragically impacted by campus abuse. Families across South Carolina are often drawn to Texas universities for their exceptional programs and opportunities, making our expertise in Texas hazing law directly relevant to their needs.

Our firm’s qualifications are particularly suited to the complexities of hazing litigation:

• Insurance Insider Advantage (Lupe Peña): Attorney Lupe Peña is a game-changer. As a former insurance defense attorney at a national firm, she knows exactly how fraternity and university insurance companies think. She understands their intricate “playbooks”—their delay tactics, their arguments for denying coverage, and their often aggressive settlement strategies. This insider knowledge provides an invaluable advantage, allowing us to anticipate their moves and counter them effectively. We know their playbook because, candidly, she used to help write it.
• Complex Litigation Against Massive Institutions (Ralph Manginello): Our managing partner, Ralph Manginello, has a distinguished track record of taking on formidable opponents. He was one of the few Texas firms involved in the massive BP Texas City explosion litigation, a monumental case against a multi-billion-dollar corporation. This experience, coupled with extensive federal court admissions (including the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas), means we are not intimidated by national fraternities, multi-campus university systems, or their formidable defense teams. We’ve proven we can go toe-to-toe with the biggest corporate defendants and win.
• Multi-Million Dollar Wrongful Death and Catastrophic Injury Experience: Hazing too often leads to wrongful death or catastrophic injuries like traumatic brain injury, acute kidney failure, or severe psychological trauma. Our firm has a proven track record in these complex, high-stakes cases, understanding how to value lifetime care needs and future lost earnings. We don’t just “settle cheap”; we meticulously build cases that account for the full, devastating impact on a family, forcing maximum accountability.
• Dual Criminal + Civil Hazing Expertise: Unlike many firms, we understand both sides of the coin. Ralph’s membership in the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association (HCCLA) equips us with a unique perspective on how criminal hazing charges (often brought in cases of serious injury or death) interact with civil litigation. This means we can advise not only victims but also offer strategic guidance to witnesses or former members who might face criminal exposure themselves.
• Unparalleled Investigative Depth: Winning hazing cases demands more than just legal theory; it requires relentless investigation. We leverage a network of top experts, including medical specialists, digital forensics analysts (to recover deleted texts and social media), economists, and psychologists. Our experience in obtaining hidden evidence—from clandestine group chats and internal chapter records to university conduct files via discovery—is critical to uncovering the truth. We investigate like your child’s life depends on it—because it does.
• Empathy and Victim Advocacy: Behind every hazing incident is a human tragedy. We approach each case with profound empathy, recognizing the immense pain, confusion, and betrayal families experience. Our mission is not just compensation; it’s to get you answers, hold the responsible parties accountable, and work tirelessly to prevent this senseless suffering from happening to another family.

For families in South Carolina, whether the hazing occurred at a Texas university or another institution, we offer a dedicated legal partnership that prioritizes thorough investigation and genuine accountability.

9.2 Call to action (South Carolina-Customized)

If you or your child, residing in South Carolina, has experienced the trauma of hazing at any Texas campus—whether it’s Clemson, the University of South Carolina, or anywhere across the country—we want to hear from you. We understand that parents across South Carolina expect safety and accountability when entrusting their children to higher education, and we are here to ensure those expectations are met. Families in South Carolina and throughout the surrounding region have the right to answers and accountability; you don’t have to face this alone.

Contact The Manginello Law Firm today for a confidential, no-obligation consultation. We will listen to your story, explain your legal options under Texas law, and help you decide the best path forward for your family.

What to expect in your free consultation:

• We’ll Listen: We will listen to what happened without judgment, providing a safe space for you to share your experience.
• Review Evidence: We’ll review any evidence you have—from photos and texts to medical records—to understand the scope of the incident.
• Explain Options: We will clearly explain your legal options, whether that involves a criminal report, a civil lawsuit, or a combination of approaches.
• Discuss Timelines: We will provide realistic timelines and expectations for the legal process ahead.
• Address Costs: We operate on a contingency fee basis; we don’t get paid unless we win your case, removing any upfront financial burden.
• No Pressure: There’s absolutely no pressure to hire us on the spot. Take the time you need to decide what’s best for your family.
• Confidentiality: Everything you share during the consultation is completely confidential and protected.

Provide clear contact information:

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

Spanish-language services:

• Hablamos Español – Contact Lupe Peña at lupe@atty911.com for consultation in Spanish. We are ready to assist you in your preferred language.
• Servicios legales en español disponibles.

Whether you’re in Charleston, Greenville, Columbia, or anywhere across South Carolina, if hazing has impacted your family, you don’t have to face this alone. Trust the Legal Emergency Lawyers™ to navigate these complex challenges with expertise and compassion. Call us today.

Complete South Carolina University Directory

Attorney911 tracks every higher education institution in South Carolina. For reference:

• University of South Carolina Aiken | Aiken, Aiken County | Public University
• Anderson University | Anderson, Anderson County | Private Non-Profit
• University of South Carolina Beaufort | Bluffton, Beaufort County | Public University
• Southern Wesleyan University | Central, Pickens County | Private Non-Profit
• American College of the Building Arts | Charleston, Charleston County | Private Non-Profit
• Charleston School of Law | Charleston, Charleston County | Private For-Profit
• Charleston Southern University | Charleston, Charleston County | Private Non-Profit
• Citadel Military College of South Carolina | Charleston, Charleston County | Public University
• College of Charleston | Charleston, Charleston County | Public University
• Medical University of South Carolina | Charleston, Charleston County | Public University
• Clemson University | Clemson, Pickens County | Public University
• Presbyterian College | Clinton, Laurens County | Private Non-Profit
• Allen University | Columbia, Richland County | Private Non-Profit
• Benedict College | Columbia, Richland County | Private Non-Profit
• Columbia College | Columbia, Richland County | Private Non-Profit
• Columbia International University | Columbia, Richland County | Private Non-Profit
• South University-Columbia | Columbia, Richland County | Private For-Profit
• University of South Carolina-Columbia | Columbia, Richland County | Public University
• Coastal Carolina University | Conway, Horry County | Public University
• Voorhees University | Denmark, Bamberg County | Private Non-Profit
• Erskine College | Due West, Abbeville County | Private Non-Profit
• Francis Marion University | Florence, Florence County | Public University
• Limestone University | Gaffney, Cherokee County | Private Non-Profit
• Bob Jones University | Greenville, Greenville County | Private Non-Profit
• Furman University | Greenville, Greenville County | Private Non-Profit
• Greenville Technical College | Greenville, Greenville County | Public University
• Strayer University-South Carolina | Greenville, Greenville County | Private For-Profit
• Lander University | Greenwood, Greenwood County | Public University
• Coker University | Hartsville, Darlington County | Private Non-Profit
• Newberry College | Newberry, Newberry County | Private Non-Profit
• Claflin University | Orangeburg, Orangeburg County | Private Non-Profit
• South Carolina State University | Orangeburg, Orangeburg County | Public University
• Clinton College | Rock Hill, York County | Private Non-Profit
• Winthrop University | Rock Hill, York County | Public University
• Converse University | Spartanburg, Spartanburg County | Private Non-Profit
• Sherman College of Chiropractic | Spartanburg, Spartanburg County | Private Non-Profit
• Spartanburg Methodist College | Spartanburg, Spartanburg County | Private Non-Profit
• University of South Carolina-Upstate | Spartanburg, Spartanburg County | Public University
• Wofford College | Spartanburg, Spartanburg County | Private Non-Profit
• Morris College | Sumter, Sumter County | Private Non-Profit
• North Greenville University | Tigerville, Greenville County | Private Non-Profit

Complete South Carolina Greek Organization Directory

Attorney911 tracks every IRS-registered fraternity and sorority in South Carolina:

• ZETA PHI BETA SORORITY INC | EIN: 58-2343232 | BENNETTSVILLE, SC
• SC DELTA HOUSING CORPORATION | EIN: 58-2453532 | BLYTHEWOOD, SC
• SPARTANBURG ALUMNI OF KAPPA ALPHA PSI FRATERNITY INC | EIN: 26-0072457 | CAMDEN, SC
• KAPPA PSI PHARMACEUTICAL FRATERNITY INC | EIN: 80-0503149 | CHARLESTON, SC
• SIGMA CHI FRATERNITY IOTA EPSILON COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON | EIN: 57-0846628 | CHARLESTON, SC
• ZETA PHI BETA SORORITY INC CHI IOTA CHAPTER | EIN: 52-1346497 | CHARLESTON, SC
• ALPHA SIGMA PHI FRATERNITY INC | EIN: 20-2272015 | CLEMSON, SC
• COLLEGE PANHELLENIC ASSOCIATION AT CLEMSON UNIVERSITY | EIN: 85-1413051 | CLEMSON, SC
• DELTA CHI FRATERNITY | EIN: 57-0888112 | CLEMSON, SC
• ETA ALPHA CHAPTER OF THETA CHI FRATERNITY | EIN: 82-3127067 | CLEMSON, SC
• KAPPA ALPHA PSI FRATERNITY INC – KAPPA LAM | EIN: 52-1229185 | CLEMSON, SC
• KAPPA BETA CHAPTER OF KAPPA KAPPA PSI | EIN: 73-1472545 | CLEMSON, SC
• ALPHA SIGMA PHI FRATERNITY INC | EIN: 47-4075146 | CLINTON, SC
• BETA PSI CHAPTER OF THETA CHI | EIN: 35-2630290 | CLINTON, SC
• ALPHA ETA CHAPTER OF PHI KAPPA SIGMA INTERNATIONAL FRATERNITY | EIN: 26-2269911 | COLUMBIA, SC
• ALPHA SIGMA PHI FRANTERNITY INC | EIN: 83-2840421 | COLUMBIA, SC
• DELTA CHAPTER ALUMNI HOUSE CORPORATION | EIN: 57-1089196 | COLUMBIA, SC
• DELTA UPSILON HOUSING CORPORATION OF SOUTH CAROLINA | EIN: 80-0008714 | COLUMBIA, SC
• GAMMA CHI CHAPTER OF THE ALPHA EPSILON PI CHAPTER | EIN: 20-8655786 | COLUMBIA, SC
• PI KAPPA ALPHA FRATERNITY | EIN: 57-6027420 | COLUMBIA, SC
• PI KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY | EIN: 57-6033531 | COLUMBIA, SC
• RHO-OMEGA OF TAU KAPPA EPSILON | EIN: 88-1572230 | COLUMBIA, SC
• SC ALPHA CHAPTER OF SIGMA PHI EPSILON FRATERNITY | EIN: 57-6025618 | COLUMBIA, SC
• SIGMA GAMMA RHO SORORITY | EIN: 27-0574750 | COLUMBIA, SC
• SIGMA GAMMA RHO SORORITY INC | EIN: 91-2136335 | COLUMBIA, SC
• TCIP HOUSING CORPORATION | EIN: 83-3138507 | COLUMBIA, SC
• ZETA EPSILON CHAPTER OF KAPPA ALPHA PSI FRATERNITY INC | EIN: 23-7098914 | COLUMBIA, SC
• ALPHA SIGMA PHI FRATERNITY INC | EIN: 83-1418535 | CONWAY, SC
• THETA MU CHAPTER HOUSE CORPORATION | EIN: 84-3196562 | DUNCAN, SC
• SIGMA CHI HOUSE CORPORATION OF TRI-CITIES INC | EIN: 62-1671363 | EASLEY, SC
• KINGSTREE ALUMNI CHAPTER OF KAPPA ALPHA PSI FRATERNITY INC | EIN: 57-6029858 | FLORENCE, SC
• EDUCATION EQUALS HOPE INC | EIN: 27-0832096 | FORT MILL, SC
• ALPHA DITE CRITERION FRATERNITY | EIN: 81-5373548 | GOOSE CREEK, SC
• IOTA NU CHAPTER SIGMA CHI FRATERNITY | EIN: 83-4395948 | GREENVILLE, SC
• ZETA PHI BETA SORORITY | EIN: 52-1584146 | GREENVILLE, SC
• ZETA PHI BETA SORORITY INCORPORATED EPSILON IOTA ZETA CHAPTER | EIN: 57-6025737 | GREENVILLE, SC
• ALPHA BETA BETA CHAPTER | EIN: 03-0422161 | HARTSVILLE, SC
• ZETA PHI BETA SORORITY INC IOTA XI ZETA | EIN: 52-1345681 | LAKE CITY, SC
• HORRY COUNTY PEARLS INC | EIN: 46-1638298 | MYRTLE BEACH, SC
• OMEGA PSI PHI FRATERNITY | EIN: 57-6030437 | ORANGEBURG, SC
• ZETA PHI BETA SORORITY INC | EIN: 57-1091682 | ORANGEBURG, SC
• DELTA PI CHAPTER OF SIGMA SIGMA SIGMA HOUSE CORPORATION | EIN: 57-1071933 | ROCK HILL, SC
• KAPPA ALPHA PSI FRATERNITY | EIN: 57-6029861 | ROCK HILL, SC
• LAMBDA GAMMA CHAPTER OF KAPPA ALPHA PSI FRATERNITY | EIN: 52-1249976 | ROCK HILL, SC
• ZETA TAU CHAPTER HOUSING CORP FOR ALPHA DELTA PI | EIN: 57-0757347 | ROCK HILL, SC
• ALPHA SIGMA PHI FRATERNITY INC | EIN: 84-4007037 | SPARTANBURG, SC
• PI KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY ZETA CHAPTER | EIN: 57-6033533 | SPARTANBURG, SC
• PROVINCE RHO SIGMA ALPHA EPSILON FRATERNITY | EIN: 47-3091544 | SPARTANBURG, SC
• ZETA PHI BETA SORORITY INC LAMBDA NU ZETA CHAPTER | EIN: 93-2991492 | SUMMERVILLE, SC
• PHI PHI CHAPTER OF CHI ETA PHI SORORITY INC | EIN: 57-1111829 | SUMTER, SC
• ZETA PHI BETA SORORITY INC | EIN: 51-0227425 | SUMTER, SC

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