Out of the nine Justices who ruled in the case, 4 of them did not hold with the majority. "Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice White and Justice Thomas join, dissenting." (Raskin). These four justices argued against the majority's opinions of government endorsement and coercion and named tradition more important than alleviating offence.
"The history and tradition of our Nation are replete with public ceremonies featuring prayers of thanksgiving and petition... From our Nation's origin, prayer has been a prominent part of government ceremonies and proclamations... In his first inaugural address, after swearing his oath of office on a Bible, George Washington deliberately made a prayer a part of his first official act as President... Such applications have been a characteristic feature of inaugural addresses ever since... Thomas Jefferson, for example, prayed in his first inaugural address... In his second inaugural address, Jefferson acknowledged his need for divine guidance and invited his audience to join his prayer... Similarly, James Madison, in his first inaugural address, placed his confidence 'in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being...' Most recently, President Bush, continuing the tradition established by President Washington, asked those attending his inauguration to bow their heads, and made a prayer his first official act as President." (Lee v Weisman, 505 US 577).
-- Dissenting Justices on the importance of tradition
"The Court declares that students' 'attendance and participation in the [invocation and benediction] are in a fair and real sense obligatory. But what exactly is this 'fair and real sense'? According to the Court, students at graduation who want 'to avoid the fact or appearance of participation' in the invocation and benediction are psychologically obligated by 'public pressure, as well as peer pressure... to stand as a group, or at least, maintain respectful silence' during those prayers. [However]... It does not say, for example, that students are psychologically coerced to bow their heads, place their hands in a Durer-like prayer position, pay attention to the prayers, utter ‘Amen,’ or in fact, pray...It claims only that students are psychologically coerced ‘to stand… or, at least, maintain respectful silence." (Raskin).
"The opinion manifests that the Court itself has not given careful consideration to its test of psychological coercion. For if it had, how could it observe, with no hint of coercion or disapproval, that students stood for the Pledge of Allegiance... ? Moreover, since the Pledge of Allegiance has been revised since Barnette to include the phrase 'under God,' recital of the Pledge would appear to raise the same Establishment Clause issue as the invocation and benediction. If students were psychologically coerced to remain standing during the invocation, they must also have been psychologically coerced, moments before, to stand for... the Pledge. Must the Pledge therefore be barred from the public schools...?" (Lee v Weisman).
-- Dissenting Justices on the inconsistent concept of coercion.
"The other 'dominant fac[t]' identified by the Court is that '[s]tate officials direct the performance of a formal religious exercise' at school graduation ceremonies. 'Direct[ing] the performance of a formal religious exercise' has a sound of liturgy to it, summoning up images of the principal directing acolytes where to carry the cross, or showing the rabbi where to unroll the Torah... All the record shows is that principals of the Providence public schools, acting within their delegated authority, have invited clergy to deliver invocations and benedictions at graduations; and that Principal Lee invited Rabbi Gutterman, provided him a two-page flyer, prepared by the National Conference of Christians and Jews, giving general advice on inclusive prayer for civic occasions, and advised him that his prayers at graduation should be non-sectarian. How these facts can fairly be transformed into the charges that Principal Lee 'directed and controlled the content of [Rabbi Gutterman's] prayer'... is difficult to fathom." (Lee v Weisman, 505 US 577). Along with the criticism of the majority Court's opinion, Justice Scalia also mentioned the benefit of prayers. "Justice Scalia suggested that the occasion of civic prayer in the middle school graduation ceremony trained citizens to respect the religious beliefs of others. He argued maintaining respect for the religious observations of others is a fundamental civic virtue that government (including the public schools) can and should cultivate." (Hall). "To deprive our society of that important unifying mechanism, in order to spare the non-believer what seems to me the minimal inconvenience of standing or even sitting in respectful non-participation. is as senseless in policy as it is unsupported in law. For the foregoing reasons, I dissent." (Lee v Weisman).