Questions: a. What happened in this case? Why did the Weismans object to the rabbi's invocation and benediction? b. What arguments can the Weismans make? c. What arguments can the school make? d. Compare this case to the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that have found public school-sponsored prayer to be unconstitutional. How is this case like the school prayer cases? How is it different? e. How should this case be decided? f. Assume that after the Weismans' complaint the school abandoned its policy of selecting different religious leaders each year and instead sponsored an election for students to elect a peer to write and deliver a prayer at graduation exercises. Would such a policy violate the First Amendment? Explain. g. Could the school post information on its bulletin board about a community-based baccalaureate service sponsored by local churches for graduating seniors? Would it make a difference if the sign said, "This is not a school-sponsored or school-endorseo activity"?

Deborah Weisman graduated from Nathan Bishop Middle School, a public school in Providence, RI. A rabbi from a local synagogue delivered the invocation and benediction at the graduation ceremony. The Weismans, who are Jewish, objected to the inclusion of clergy-led prayers at the public school graduation and sued, claiming a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (separation of church and state).

The Weismans argued that by inviting a rabbi to deliver an invocation and benediction at a public school graduation ceremony, the school was endorsing religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause. Although attendance was voluntary, and guidelines for inclusivity were given to the rabbi, they maintained that the very act of including prayer created a coercive environment for students who may not share the same religious beliefs. They also argued that it constituted government sponsorship of religion.

The school argued that the invocations and benedictions were non-denominational, voluntary, and in line with the community's tradition. They emphasized that they permitted, but did not direct the practice, and provided guidelines promoting inclusivity and sensitivity. The school likely argued that the prayers were a reflection of the community's values and that prohibiting them would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Furthermore, the school likely argued that the prayers were ceremonial and did not constitute a "real" establishment of religion.