Hazing has plagued college campuses for decades, and that unfortunately has not changed in recent years. A fraternity at the University of Iowa was recently suspended following the investigation of an alleged 2024 hazing incident. According to the many news articles on the incident, first responders were called to the fraternity house for a fire alarm and found pledges covered in ketchup, mustard, and alcohol.

Three members of an Arizona fraternity are facing hazing charges in connection with the death of a student during a rush event in late January. It was reported that alcohol consumption was involved. A fraternity at Clemson University was placed on probation for hazing that occurred in the fall of 2025. According to Clemson’s Organizational Conduct Cases report, the fraternity engaged in hazing practices including mild physical exercise and acts of personal servitude. 

In an effort to address hazing in North Carolina, the General Assembly passed Session Law 2025-73 (SB 375), also called “Harrison’s Law.” The law is named after Harrison Kowiak, a young man who died in 2008 from a head injury he suffered during a hazing incident at Lenoir-Rhyne University. Harrison’s Law amended the hazing statute and increased the punishment for the offense. This post briefly describes the statutory changes and compares the acts covered by state law to the laws in other jurisdictions.

Hazing in North Carolina

Under North Carolina law, it is unlawful for any student in attendance at any university, college, or school in the state to engage in hazing, or to aid or abet any other student in the commission of hazing. G.S. 14-35. Before December 1, 2025, hazing was defined as “subject[ing] another student to physical injury as part of an initiation, or as a prerequisite to membership, into any organized school group, including any society, athletic team, fraternity or sorority, or other similar group.” The penalty for hazing was a Class 2 misdemeanor.

Effective for offenses committed on or after December 1, 2025, the definition of hazing is expanded to include serious psychological injury, and the punishment is increased to a Class A1 misdemeanor. Though our general statutes do not define “serious psychological injury,” our courts have found such where the mental injury inflicted is found to extend for some appreciable time beyond the incidents surrounding the crime itself. State v. Boone, 307 N.C. 198 (1982). Serious mental injury (likely equivalent to the term “serious psychological injury”) has previously been found in other contexts, where:

• a victim suffered a mental injury requiring several hospital admissions and treatment by anti-depressant medication (See State v. Everhardt, 326 N.C. 777 (1990));
• a victim’s mental and emotional injuries continued for at least seven months after a rape; the victim quit work, quit school, moved from her home, and sought professional help (See State v. Mayse, 97 N.C. App. 559 (1990));
• a victim suffered from physical pain, appetite loss, severe headaches, nightmares, and difficulty in sleeping lasting for at least eight months (See State v. Davis, 101 N.C. App. 12 (1990)); and
• a victim experienced weight loss for ten months after a rape; at the time of trial, twelve months after the rape, she was still experiencing depression, was unable to sleep, and did not feel comfortable interacting with the public; and the victim was unable to carry out her role as a mother and had to give up her child to the child’s grandmother for care for nine months. (See State v. Baker, 336 N.C. 58 (1994)).

The offense was also expanded to prohibit hazing by school personnel, including teachers, school administrators, student teachers, school safety officers, or coaches. Hazing by school personnel is punishable as a Class I felony.

Scope of the hazing statute

According to annual data from the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, hazing has been charged only three times statewide since 2019. Perhaps that is because North Carolina students do not engage in hazing practices. It could also be because the language of either the current or former version of G.S. 14-35 does not encompass many of the acts that could be considered hazing in other jurisdictions.

In the University of Iowa story mentioned at the beginning of this post, the pledges were reported to have been covered in ketchup, mustard, and alcohol. Those facts alone would not satisfy the elements of the North Carolina hazing statute, as those activities are not likely to have caused physical injury. Those acts also would not meet the elements of the hazing statute as amended if the activity did not cause serious psychological injury.

The members of the Clemson University fraternity reportedly engaged in hazing practices including mild physical exercise and acts of personal servitude. Similar acts would not have been punished under the previous North Carolina hazing statute if they did not result in physical injury. To the extent that the activities caused any psychological injury, the State would likely be required to show that the psychological injury extended for some appreciable time beyond the incidents surrounding the offense itself.

Hazing in other jurisdictions

North Carolina hazing law appears to be limited in comparison with that of other jurisdictions. Several other states have hazing laws that encompass various forms of conduct.

In Idaho, hazing is defined as subjecting a person to bodily danger or physical harm or a likelihood of bodily danger or physical harm, or requiring, encouraging, authorizing or permitting that the person be subjected to any of the following:

1. Total or substantial nudity on the part of the person;
2. Compelled ingestion of any substance by the person;
3. Wearing or carrying of any obscene or physically burdensome article by the person;
4. Physical assaults upon or offensive physical contact with the person;
5. Participation by the person in boxing matches, excessive number of calisthenics, or other physical contests;
6. Transportation and abandonment of the person;
7. Confinement of the person to unreasonably small, unventilated, unsanitary or unlighted areas;
8. Sleep deprivation; or
9. Assignment of pranks to be performed by the person. Idaho Code § 18-917.

It is possible for many of these acts to be perpetrated without causing physical injury or serious psychological injury, and the Idaho statute does not appear to require any physical or psychological injury in connection with the acts. Therefore, an act that could be charged as hazing in Idaho might fall outside the scope of the North Carolina hazing statute.

Arizona’s hazing law includes, in part, “unhealthy exposure to the elements.” A.R.S. § 13-1215(A)(6). Colorado’s hazing law includes, in part, prolonged deprivation of food or drink. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-124(2)(b)(III). To the extent that these acts are perpetrated without resulting in physical injury or serious psychological injury, the acts would not be punishable as hazing in North Carolina.

Compared to the reach of some other jurisdictions, North Carolina’s version of hazing is relatively narrow, requiring physical injury or serious mental injury before any criminal liability attaches. The General Assembly’s recent changes to the crime of hazing indicate an intent to punish covered acts more seriously, but many actions (like requiring a pledge to perform demeaning or risky tasks) are not covered under the law absent actual physical or mental injury that occurs as a result.