Muncie Public Library Board Ignores Black Community’s Cries: Closes Conley

It’s official: The Muncie Public Library’s Board of Trustees has decided to shut down the Vivian Conley Library branch. Despite an hour-long meeting, which featured divergent views to the decision, a unanimous vote was rendered for its closure. To say I’m shocked would be misleading; but, still, I wasn’t expecting unanimity.
Last Spring, when the economic belt began tightening around Muncie Public Library’s (MPL) waist, it was clear some drastic actions had to be taken. In April last year, MPL’s Public Relations Manager informed that “the libraries could be losing half a million dollars next year, and as much as one million dollars by 2010.” As such, it was a given that some give-and-take would have to be employed, if MPL was to weather the gathering economic storm. Undecided on what steps to take, it asked for some feedback from the Muncie community.
To my knowledge, the people failed not in expressing how much MPL meant to them.
Soon after, MPL’s tough decisions were made—public: Libraries would have to be shut down, and operation hours—for the others—cut down. It was in the fall, last year, when the announcement was made, that Conley was one of those without hope of survival. The Board blamed it on low-“circulation” at Conley. (Code words.)
Protests against this decision were of no shortage. Muncie’s Black Community made its mind known and its feelings felt. (If only they knew no one—that mattered—was listening.) Their cries for help, unfortunately, seem to have traveled, largely, unheard. A mere two days ago, a demonstration was staged outside the Kennedy Library—located in the more mainstream side of town—by Conley supporters, who appeared fed up with the lack of visibility their fight had received, thus far.
As The Star Press’s Ivy Farguheson reported, they were there to ensure the Board members knew they weren’t “giving up on their fight to save what they see as a ‘community jewel’ in the Whiteley neighborhood.” One of the protesters, Myrna Robertson, had the following to say: “We’re saying, ‘you enjoy your library, so why don’t you come and join forces with us and let us enjoy ours,’ It’s not a negative protest. We’re just saying, our library is being used, too.”
Ms. Robertson’s remarks ring deep for anyone insightful enough to catch her drift. She’s asking a question the Board would rather not answer: Why sacrifice a library dear to the heart of one community, when millions of dollars were just spent, a couple of years ago, to renovate another?
The “our” she spoke of is a vibrant community which, as another protester (Dolores Rhinehart) noted, has not been dealt a fair share of the city’s resources: “The city keeps taking everything out of our community. What do they want us to do? We only have MOMs (Motivate Our Minds) left. Conley has been a refuge for some of the kids.”
What do “they” want “them” to do?
They protest not because they are agitators or illogical citizens. Not because they fail to decipher the severity of the economic crisis. Not because they need to be explained to, in plain terms, the concept of opportunity cost. Not because they are greedy. Not because they are selfish. They protest because they see a community treasure being stolen away from the future of their children.
To them, Conley library is more than a house of books. It serves a deeper purpose—one more spiritual: Conley represents the cornerstone of community. Conley is their community. Their “refuge.”
CONLEY is COMMUNITY.
Why, then, does the board refuse to hear their side out? Or, better yet, why is it indifferent to implementing some of the alternatives they have offered—such as shorter days, or volunteer-based operation. This, and much more, must be answered by the same group who saw no wrong in unanimously voting to shut down what Conley’s supporters call their home away from home.
Technorati Tags: 
Post new comment