Watertown Library The Watertown Free Public Library.
The following statement was read by Watertown Board of Library Trustees Chair Leanne Hammonds about the request to reconsider including a book in the summer reading suggested reading list.
Hammonds read the statement regarding “A Map for Falasteen: A Palestinian Child’s Search for Home,” during the July 31 Trustees meeting.
The statement reads:
As chair of the Board of Trustees, I acknowledge the library’s receipt last month of a Request for Reconsideration from a Watertown Resident. A Request for Reconsideration is a process outlined in our Collection Development Policy to consider moving a book to a different area within our collection or removing it from our collection entirely. In this instance the requestor asked that the library remove a title from the Watertown Public School’s Suggested Summer Reading List. The Collection Development Policy does not have a mechanism for removing titles from reading lists. So, Library Director Long accepted this request in good faith as a courtesy and treated it as feedback similar to a public comment. In light of this request and community inquiries on the Watertown Public School’s Suggested Summer Reading List, as chair, I want to be fully transparent about this matter to the public and issue the following Statement.
To provide background relative to this request, the 2025 Watertown Public Schools Suggested Summer Reading List followed the same internal process previously used for the past 10 years. Library staff reviewed the previous year’s “Best of” lists, award winners, and reviews from established publishers. There is not any one person responsible for the selection of titles on the summer reading list. The list is initially drafted by professional library staff and those suggestions are sent to the Watertown Public Schools for their review before finalizing and publishing the final list.
None of the titles on any of the lists are required reading. The summer reading lists may or may not be used in an entirely voluntary manner at an individual or family’s sole discretion. WFPL’s list process is consistent with Library policies and procedures, the American Library Association’s Freedom to Read Statement, and their national professional standards for intellectual freedom. The Library curates the collection following board-approved policies and related national ALA procedures, which outline a range of selection criteria for the Library to weigh in choosing materials, and which library staff also apply to their process for reading lists.
These criteria, include:
● Serving Library patrons of all ages and cultural backgrounds, realizing that patrons have diverse needs, interests, value systems, and reading abilities. Not all materials will be suitable for, or of interest to, all segments of the community.
● Current events and critical assessments in review media (book reviews and awards).
● Consistent with national library standards, the Library provides free and equitable access to a diverse range of library resources.
● The Library does not act in loco parentis…the Library defers to parents’ and families’ own rights and responsibilities to guide their children’s reading and viewing of library materials as they so voluntarily choose. And finally,
● The Library endorses and defends the concept of intellectual freedom as protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and as codified by the ALA’s Intellectual Freedom policies and principles.
Part of WFPL’s mission is to provide access to books for readers of all ages and expand our understanding of people with different backgrounds, ideas, and beliefs.
The Library affirms its commitment to intellectual freedom and the rights of all individuals to choose their own literary pursuits at their own discretion.
Thank you.
“The Collection Development Policy does not have a mechanism for removing titles from reading lists.”
A “mechanism”? How about common sense? How about a sense of decency? Why does it take a mechanism to do the right thing? This was not a request to remove a book, any book, from the library; this was a request of the library to withdraw its tacit support of a single point of view on a very controversial issue over which blood has been shed and lives lost for centuries. That can’t be too much to ask. Blaming it on a lack of mechanism is a moral dodge. Saying that no one has to read it is another—another two, as you repeat yourself. I can imagine that response applying to a great many books on controversial issues. I look forward to hearing it ad nauseam in the future.
Dear Josh, Sorry that you are upset about a book you probably have not read.
From the letter by the library it seems that there has been a lot of consideration from many people about the book suggestion list. Maybe if you read the letter again you will find that in fact the library has decency in great abundance.
As a person from a family of both Jews and other faiths, I find the blind followings of some people to only one perspective or belief system as being most disturbing.
There would be no wars if more minds were open.
I think this is a very thoughtful response, and thank you for not banning the book. The previous poster mentions that this book only presents one point of view. Perhaps they may suggest a book that gives a more well – rounded perspective. Understanding and empathizing with others is a key way that communities can build thoughtful bridges to peace. Books are a great way to build those bridges.
Just a note- in 9th grade my English teacher passed out a list of books that had been or currently were “banned in Boston.” Among the titles were many books I cherished like Lord of the Flies, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, Canterbury Tales and Elie Weisel’s Night. My friends and I pretty much devoured the list. No book is more interesting to me than one you tell me I can’t read!
If you read carefully you will see that the request was NOT to ban the book nor was anyone suggesting it be banned so I’m not sure why you’re thanking them for not banning it. The request was to remove it from a summer reading list. The presence of a book on the list makes people aware of the book and implies it is recommended and the person who requested its removal from the list felt it was not a book that should be recommended due to one-sided views.
This difference between challenging and banning a book will be helpful for this conversation, asking for it to be removed from a list is basically equivalent to asking for it to be removed from a curriculum I think. So this applies here. https://www.ala.org/bbooks/banned-books-qa
just fyi what this argument reads as to regular people is “we just wanted to censor the list not burn a book, why are people so mean?!”
“Tacit support for a single point of view”???
Reading lists are best useful when they include many single and varied points of view. I enthusiastically support WFPL’s curation of a breadth of titles for consideration. By all means people should choose those books they prefer and respect others’ privilege to do the same.
Personally, I would further prefer that those concerned about any single point of view should nominate alternatives to broaden, rather than narrow, public awareness of and access to literature.
Best regards,
Craig Himmelberger
I agree. We have enough cancelling of viewpoints as it is. Free speech is being attacked from all sides. People should be ashamed of supporting removing any books because one group deems it “untrue”. These days with the Middle East as with everything else, truth is in the eyes of the beholder, and nuance is dead.
I also support the Library’s inclusion of books with many different perspectives. We live in a very complicated world and perspectives are far from binary. I hope we can get kids reading all kinds of books and thinking about history and ideas. And let’s read along with them so we can help them learn critical thinking skills and compassion for others. As Dawn Scaltreto said, this is the way to build bridges to greater peace in our world. Thank you to the Library.
I agree with Dawn and Craig. Personally, I don’t understand Josh’s criticism about “tacit support of a single point of view on a very controversial issue”.
Making a book available on a reading list is simply that — making a book available, not endorsing or supporting — explicitly or tacitly — its point of view. It is acknowledging that the topic is important and highlighting it for our attention (e.g. it’s “controversial”). But I think that’s totally appropriate for a public library to do.
I also don’t understand the objection about a book projecting a single point of view — whether for adults or for kids. That’s free speech, and that’s what books do — they share a perspective, a point of view. I think it’s up to us as adults — and as parents with kids — to put that point of view in context and to make sense of it in our own lives.
I agree that books “project a single point of view”. By your logic, then, the library is doing exactly that, projecting a single point of view. The book was already “available”, and no one is arguing for it to be made unavailable. The library is “highlighting it for our attention”, also true. Putting it all together, you describe the library as highlighting a single point of view for our attention. When other members of our community have diverse points of view—on a complex and emotional issue—and were ignored. If you think “that’s totally appropriate for a library to do”, I must disagree. We say we embrace diversity around here. So let’s.
I am not in favor of banning books I don’t agree with.. That can lead to banning books I do agree with. But if only one side of an issue is presented it can turn out just as bad as book banning. Access to opposing points of view is vital. Hiding behind bureaucratic “mechanisms” obscures the real issues.
Thank you for resisting censorship. The fact is, we have children of the Palestinian diaspora living in our communities. They deserve to be seen, and to be supported in their quest (just like any other child’s) to understand who they are, and where they come from. I’m a former Watertown resident (currently living across the river, in Newton), but I find I’m quite proud at the position the library is taking.
I still feel like this statement, and many of the comments on Rachael Sack’s letter to the editor, are missing the point of the initial request and our subsequent disappointment in the way it was handled. No one is asking for a book to be banned and any comments to that effect are either making a lazy conflation or have an axe to grind. And people who claim that we should be resisting an effort to stifle voices or opinions we don’t agree with have either not read the book or are too naive to see it for what it is, i.e. political propaganda masquerading as a children’s book. One has only to read the “notes for parents” at the end of the book to realize this. I’m certain that this is the only book on that summer reading list that espouses the erasure, or at a minimum non-acknowledgment, of the existence of a sovereign nation, one that was created as a safe haven for a persecuted people after the Holocaust. This is right out of Hamas’ (and Iran’s) playbook of delegitimizing Israel to facilitate its destruction while the world turns its back.
Even if the library did not ultimately agree to remove the book from the reading list, frankly we would have been at least somewhat satisfied with the establishment of a dialogue with the Director and/or Trustees to frankly explain our objections and how it made us feel as members of an objectively-targeted minority in the United States and the world. But this never happened, which led us all to where we are now, which is so unfortunate. When has the refusal to engage in good-faith conversation about a sensitive topic, especially by a public institution ostensibly representing all of its constituents, ever been a productive strategy?
I support the WPL in its consideration and thoughtful response.
I am not “making a lazy conflation or have an axe to grind”. I, like everyone, have a right to express my thoughts on the subject.
In my opinion removing a book from a list is the same as banning a book from a list.
A list for second-graders. Who will believe everything that they read because they have not yet developed critical thinking skills. Do you not see the difference?
I’m puzzled why writers here praise the WPL for selecting one book, yet excuse them from presenting two or more. I don’t excuse them: the Arab/Israeli conflict cannot be told fairly or coherently in one picture book (ages 4-8). The choice is to leave the issue for older readers, or to recommend more than one perspective. “A Map for Falasteen” is not the problem, not any problem at all. But what about other “maps” for other children? As some have asked me to make suggestions, I offer for your consideration:
“Room for Rent”, by Leah Goldberg (ages 3-8)
“Yaffa and Fatima: Shalom, Salaam”, by Fawzia Gilani-Williams (ages 4-9)
“Snow in Jerusalem”, by Deborah Da Costa (ages 4-8)
“A Moon for Moe and Mo”, by Jane Breskin Zalben (ages 3-7)
“A Sweet Meeting on Mimouna Night”, by Allison Ofanansky (ages 4-8)
“Yosef’s Dream”, by Sylvia Rouss (ages 5-8)
“Roadside Seder”, by Anna Levine (ages 5-8)
I could go on: this took about half an hour, and I don’t have the WPL’s resources. Most of my suggestions feature perspectives of both Arab and Israeli, or Jewish and Muslim, children. For slightly older readers, the interfaith pickings get even richer. If their stories of unity over division, friendship over fighting, seem far-fetched to us today, don’t we wish a more peaceful future for our children? Shalom, Salaam, as the title goes.
Excellent point and excellent list.
Thank you for offering additional titles–this is constructive, as opposed to the original comment which was not.
I appreciate the library’s explanation of how books find their way onto reading lists. I do not find it to be arbitrary, thoughtless, or pointed in any particular direction, nor do I find it deserving of such criticism for the lists it produces. I do recognize and respect the life-and-death issues behind your comments, but I would observe this is ostensibly projecting something onto a children’s book that is not there at all.
I find it abhorrent to deny *anyone* their identity, especially their “right to exist” as you and so many cite it. In my philosophy, this MUST extend to all human beings. You have raised this issue with the implication that one cannot respect one group’s “right to exist” without denying another’s, and I reject that implication.
I projected nothing and implied nothing; it was the library, not I, that rejected diversity of experience. The “thank you” was nice, however.
Well done, Josh.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/08/05/watertown-library-outcry-pro-palestinian-books-summer-reading-list/?p1=hp_secondary
Some of the comments at Boston.com make ours seem far more civilized.