1. LEE VS. WEISMAN BY JOVEN FLORES & GISELLE ORTIZ

2. WHAT IS THE ISSUE FOR THE HEARING? A: Prayers at Graduation violate Establishment Clause Background: Petitioner Lee, a middle school principal in Providence, Rhode Island, invited a Rabbi to offer prayer (invocation and benediction) at the graduation ceremony for Deborah Weisman’s class. Lee gave the Rabbi a pamphlet containing guidelines for the composition of public prayers at civic ceremonies, and advised him that the prayers should be nonsectarian (no associated with a particular religious denomination). Deborah’s father, Mr. Weisman, did not want any prayer to be said and so motioned to the District Court for a temporary restraining order to prohibit school officials from including the prayers. The District Court denied this motion. After the graduation (with the prayers being said), Weisman sought a permanent injunction barring Lee and other public school officials in the area from inviting clergy to deliver invocations and benedictions at future graduations.

3. WHAT IS THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT? Weisman is the plaintiff. He said the practice of prayer at graduations violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Basically, Weisman doesn’t like prayer. Mr. Weisman is angry.

4. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE PLAINTIFF? We agree that Weisman had the right to oppose the use of prayer. It was a public ceremony and others may not agree with religion – why should they have to conform to the tradition of prayer? HOWEVER We disagree in a political standpoint with Weisman in the sense that having prayer was a violation to the Establishment Clause. As put by passionate Justice Scalia, Chief Justice White and Justice Thomas, prayer to God is a “longstanding American tradition… at public celebrations…From our nation’s origin, prayer has been a prominent part of governmental ceremonies and proclamations….To deprive our society of that important unifying mechanism, in order to spare the nonbeliever what seems to me the minimal inconvenience of standing or even sitting in respectful nonparticipation, is as senseless in policy as it is unsupported in law. “

5. WHAT WAS THE SCHOOL OR DISTRICT’S POSITION? The School District said the prayer was nonsectarian and was voluntary because Deborah didn’t have to stand for the prayer and because participation in the ceremony itself was not required. (www.wikipedia.org)www.wikipedia.org

6. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION’S POSITION OR ACTION? Joven: Disagree. No matter how generalized the prayer is, for a middle school student, graduation is a highlight of his/her life. To choose not to come because of an offensive part of the ceremony (in this case, prayer) is a hindrance to that student’s freedom. Giselle: Agree. I do not consider sitting through a prayer as being forced to participate in a particular religion, so Deborah and her family were not forced to do anything. (What the Weimar family had to do is explained best by Justice Scalia, Chief Justice White, and Justice Thomas:“[a] minimal inconvenience of standing or even sitting in respectful nonparticipation”)

7. WHAT PRECEDENT WAS SET TO DETERMINE FUTURE CASES? Everson v. Board of Education Forty-five years ago, this Court announced a basic principle of constitutional law from which it has not strayed: the Establishment Clause forbids not only state practices that aid one religion or prefer one religion over another, but also those that aid all religions.

9. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE COURT’S DECISION? Agree. “The individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith, or none at all. This conclusion, we held, derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual’s freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of a free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects – or even intolerance among religions – to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.”

10. HOW COULD THIS APPLY TO YOUR FUTURE TEACHING CAREER? Don’t be publicly religious (Joven says “like the Pharisees”). They will persecute you. Just kidding. Be conscientious of other people’s personal beliefs. If not teaching in a private school, any form of prayer in the classroom will be ruled as unconstitutional. So don’t do it.