The audience for this presentation is campus-based professionals working with Fraternity & Sorority Life. As well as chapter advisors, national headquarters staff, higher education administrators, and student leaders.

The topic is Risk Management in Fraternity and Sorority Life, exploring legal, ethical, and administrative aspects of risk management in higher education.

State: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) serves as the central authority for higher education, providing lead coordination to promote student success, affordability, and a competitive workforce. THECB's key functions include setting goals for higher education and patterning with the Texas Legislature to align educational outcomes with workforce needs (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2025).

References:

Office of Communications and Outreach. (2025). Federal role in Education. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/federal-role-in-education

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2025). About Us. https://www.highered.texas.gov/about/

Link: H.R.5646 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Stop Campus Hazing Act. (2024). https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5646

The Stop Campus Hazing Act is a federal legislation signed into law in December 2024. It improves hazing reporting by requiring colleges to include hazing incidents in their Annual Security Report and prevents hazing by establishing campus-wide, research based hazing education and prevention programs.

This law is important for risk management as prevents harmful behavior and it includes education and skill-building strategies to help keep students safe (Stop Hazing, n.d).

Reference:

StopHazing. Hazing Prevention Policy, StopHazing Consulting. https://stophazing.org/policy

State: Texas Education Code - EDUC 51.9361. Risk Management Programs for Members and Advisors or Student Organizations

Citation: Tex. Educ. Code Ann § 51.9361

Link: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/education-code/educ-sect-51-9361/

• Requires educational institutions to provide a risk management program at least once per academic year for members of registered student organizations. 

• Topics covered during the program include alcohol, drugs, sexual abuse, fire safety, and other issues. 

• Track and disclose campus crime statistics

• Develop and publicize emergency response and evacuation procedures

• Maintain and share annual security reports

• Issue timely warnings for ongoing threats

• Develop policies to prevent and respond to sexual assault, dating violence, stalking.

This regulation is connected to risk management because it promotes transparency in reporting campus in safety information, ensures preparedness through required plans, reduces liability and compliance risks through standard procedures.

Link: https://www.clerycenter.org/the-clery-act

In-text citation: UTD Student Code of Conduct

Link: https://policy.utdallas.edu/utdsp5003#section-d-hazing

• Defines "hazing" consistent with Texas Education Code Chapter 37, Subchapter F:

  • Any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, on or off campus, by one or more persons, directed at a student for the purpose of pledging, initiation, affiliation, holding office, or maintaining membership in an organization. (UTD Student Code of Conduct.)

  • This definition includes actions such as physical brutality, forced consumption, tasks involving violations of law.

1. Mandatory Risk Management Education and Training
   Require all fraternity and sorority members to complete annual training sessions focused on hazing prevention, alcohol and drug use, sexual misconduct, and emergency protocols. These programs have been shown to influence students' attitudes and behaviors around alcohol and risk (Gregory & Janosik, 2003).

2. Event Planning and Approval Protocols
   Implement a structured event registration and approval process that includes risk assessments, designated sober monitors, guest lists, and collaboration with campus safety personnel. A formalized approach to event planning helps reduce the likelihood of harmful incidents and improves organizational accountability (Hevel, Martin, & Pascarella, 2014).

3. Policy Enforcement and Accountability Systems
   Establish and clearly communicate behavioral expectations and consequences. Include mechanisms such as anonymous reporting, peer accountability systems, and consistent disciplinary follow-through to create a culture of responsibility and safety within Greek organizations (Hevel et al., 2014).

References:

Gregory, D. E., & Janosik, S. M. (2003). The effect of a web-based alcohol prevention program on fraternity and sorority members' attitudes, perceptions, and use of alcohol. NASPA Journal, 41(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1293

Hevel, M. S., Martin, G. L., & Pascarella, E. T. (2014). Do fraternities and sororities still enhance social outcomes in the 21st century? Journal of College Student Development, 55(5), 498–514. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0051

In higher education, particularly in Greek life, student leaders and advisors are frequently faced with situations involving risk, such as hazing, alcohol misuse, or even unsafe event planning. This ethical principle highlights the importance of personal responsibility and intentional decision-making, which is critical when overseeing student organizations known for social activities with potential for liability. 

The Greek organization that I am a part of, requires members to collaborate with their risk management chair to thoroughly understand and note the potential risks involved in any event. They also have to include what steps they will take if any of the mentioned risks should occur. Ignoring this step can lead to serious consequences such as injury, harm, legal action, or even reputational damage to the organization or the institution. By taking the extra step to assess all risks, this ensures that the chapter is aware of them, and has a plan in place to intervene should any risks occur.

Reference:

ACPA Ethics Committee. ACPA. (2021). https://myacpa.org/ethicscomm/

As a supervisor within my organization, I frequently encounter situations that require ethical judgment, and knowledge of institutional policies. Now, having an understanding of legal and ethical standards has strengthen my ability to promote safe, inclusive, and compliant spaces for the chapters that I work with.

Jabbari, A., Khorasani, E., Asgari, H., Mardani, R., & Taleghani, Y. M. (2019). Designing a safety management system for higher education centers. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 8(1). http://dx.doi.org.easydb.angelo.edu/10.4103/jehp.jehp_373_18

In-Text Citation: Alton v. Texas A&M Univ., 168 F.3d 196 (5th Cir. 1999)

Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/168/196/568894/

Summary:

Plaintiff, Travis Alton, a member of Texas A&M's Corps of Cadets, alleged multiple hazing incidents by upper class cadets that included physical abuse, forced actions, and morally degrading tasks. Plaintiff sued university officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity. The issue was whether those officials could be held liable for supervisory liability when subordinate misconduct occurred, particularly when the misconduct could have been foreseeable, and whether their response, or failure to act rose to the level of silverware indifference. The court held that the plaintiff did not show that the officials had knowledges of facts or a pattern that plainly would have put them on notice of the abuse and that the abuse was likely to continue to happen.

Relevance to risk management:

This case sets a precedent in Texas that for universities and individual administrators to be liable for dangerous conduct by student organizations, it is not enough that misconduct happened or that risk was present. What matters is:

1. Whether the institution had notice (or should have had notice) of the risk or pattern of harm.

2. Whether the institution acted (or failed to act) in a way that was deliberately indifferent, not just negligently or poorly.

3. Whether the institution had polices and followed them, or tried to enforce them as part of risk mitigation.

Risk management practices such as training, awareness, reporting, and discipline are not just good practices, but they should be the automatic bare minimum standard.

In-Text Citation: Tex. Educ. Code § 37.153

Link: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/education-code/educ-sect-37-153/

• This statute holds student organizations, such as fraternities and sororities criminally liable for hazing offenses committed by members, alumni, or pledges.

• Risk management strategies include:

  • Hazing education and prevention for members and leaders.

  • Clear internal policies banning hazing.

  • Prompt investigation and discipline for violations.

Administrative: 34 C.F.R § 668.46 - Institutional Security Policies and Crime Statistics

In-Text Citation: 34 C.F.R § 668.46

Link: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-668/subpart-D

• Requires colleges and universities receiving in federal aid to publish an Annual Security Report, including crime statistics and safety policies. The report includes the following:

  • Hazing incidents, under the Stop Campus Hazing Act.

  • Crimes occurring at fraternity or sorority housing or properties controlled by student organizations.

• Institutions must:

  • Issue timely warnings about ongoing threats

  • Have formal policies on drug and alcohol use, emergency response, and crime prevention.

  • Train campus security and responsible employees.