coerced, however subtly, to participate in a religious exercise that some might find offensive. Finally, the requirement that the prayer be "nonsectarian" and "non-proselytizing" not only fails to solve the problems addressed in Weisman, it may aggravate them. While some might like the idea of an inclusive, nonsectarian "civil" religion, many do not. To some Americans the idea of nonsectarian prayer is offensive. Many Americans, for example, feel compelled to pray "in Jesus's name." Moreover the Supreme Court made clear in Weisman that even nondenominational prayers may not be established by government in the public schools. In addition, the Jones decision puts courts and school officials in the difficult position of evaluating the content of prayers to determine if they are too sectarian for use in a public school. There is also the thorny problem of determining whether a particular prayer tends to proselytize. Such entanglement of school officials in religious matters could itself be unconstitutional. In fact, a Texas school district already has been sued for discriminating against those who wish to offer more sectarian prayers at graduation exercises. Schools that follow the Jones model should understand the risks involved. If litigation results, those challenging the prayers (outside the 5th circuit) may prevail(7). More importantly, if certain prayers are offered, some students and parents may feel unwelcome in their own public schools . At the same time, it would seem possible for a school to provide a forum for student speech within a graduation ceremony during which time prayer might occur. For example, a school might choose to allow the valedictorian or class president to open the ceremony in whatever manner he or she wished. If such a student chose to utter a prayer, it seems unlikely it would be found unconstitutional unless the school had suggested or otherwise encouraged the prayer. It would also seem permissible for the s...
