Carol Penner - Chaplain and Assistant Professor of Theological Studies at Conrad Grebel University College*

* This letter reflects my personal opinion, and not the position of my employer.

To:  

MCC Canada Board Chair, Ron Ratzlaff

MCC Canada Executive Director, Ken Kim

MCC US Board Chair, Emerson Lesher

MCC US Executive Director, Ann Hershberger

Canadian Mennonite Editor, Will Braun

Anabaptist World Editor, Paul Schrag

MCC Abuse Survivors Together, MAST

Dear MCC Board Members and Executive Directors:

I am a lifelong supporter of MCC, and I believe in its mission of sharing God’s love through relief, development and peace. Peace begins at home. The MCC website states: “MCC has policies to ensure our staff, volunteers, partners and participants are safe and free from harm.” And yet, seventy-three people have come forward with allegations of abuse to “MCC Abuse Survivors Together” (MAST). 

MCC has a “Speak Up Service” that uses a third-party organization to collect complaints. This is not an effective way for board members to discover systemic abuse, because while intake is external, the complaints are handled internally. That means MCC expects survivors of abuse to trust the very organization that hurt them. 

Eleven of the seventy-three cases reported to MAST involved signed non-disclosure/non-disparagement agreements. How many former employees suffer silently, afraid to speak even to MAST about the abuse they experienced at MCC for fear of reprisal?  

How can leadership or board members know the extent or nature of experiences of those abused within the MCC organization when MCC has paid them to be silent and to not complain? If MCC truly wants to see if there are systemic abuses within the organization, they must let survivors of abuse speak their truth, and release them from NDAs. 

It’s tempting to minimize these complaints reported in MAST, and blame the victims for being hurt. But ignoring the people telling their stories through MAST is not going to make their experiences and their pain go away. I encourage MCC to hire an independent third-party to investigate how abuse allegations are handled; why are so many hurt people not finding resolution within the organization?

Perhaps you think no external investigation is needed because you think MCC has a handle on any mistakes that have happened. From the perspective of survivors of abuse, these problems are systemic, and not something that can be solved by only personal conversations. They say structural change is needed. Survivors of abuse can be a valuable resource to the organization to help it improve; if a group of this many survivors suggests there is a systemic element to the abuse, MCC should listen. 

Perhaps you think an external investigation is too expensive. The eroding of trust from MCC donors is going to be far more expensive in the long run. I think that MCC donors would far rather MCC spend money on an investigation into the way it handles abuse allegations than on NDAs. Is there a way to prevent future employees from being harmed? An external investigation may show you things you haven’t considered.

There are many firms that cater to organizations and corporations facing abuse allegations; for high fees they provide reports with a façade of impartiality. These firms are businesses that want their customers to return so they produce findings favourable to the organization that pays them. Survivors of abuse don’t pay the bills. Yet the experiences of survivors of abuse are the key to understanding what is wrong with the organization. Anyone hired to do an external investigation needs to take survivors seriously, so they must be mutually agreed upon by MAST and MCC. 

In a MCC media statement about the process with John Clarke and Anička Fast, MCC appears to be entirely reasonable, and the complainants to be unreasonable. Take a closer look at three ways victims are marginalized and blamed in this statement.

MCC appears to have done due diligence by hiring an external firm into a complaint. However, the media release fails to mention that John and Anička refused to participate in that investigation because they did not have any input into the parameters of the investigation, or choice in the investigative firm. So the results of that third party investigation do not reflect the survivors’ perspective and voice. The victims were marginalized by MCC in the very investigation into the harm done to them!  And then they were marginalized in the media statement about the process by not mentioning that they did not participate. Not good!  

Even that flawed external investigation revealed that harassment took place against John and Anička. The MCC media statement says, “We apologize for causing pain” in purple letters. But this public apology was not accompanied by personal apologies to the people who were hurt. It’s excruciating for John and Anička to read “We apologize for causing pain” on MCC’s website when they have not received a personal apology. MCC appears to be an apologizing for public relations purposes, and not offering an apology for the purpose of reconciliation with the people who were harmed. Victims of abuse are incidental to the apology and not at the center. Not good.

The media statement says that John and Anička refused a meeting, making it sound like MCC is reasonable and open to talking while the former employees are being difficult. The reason they refused that meeting was because they would not have been allowed to speak publicly about what happened at the meeting. John and Anička are waiting for a meeting that is transparent and open, that they can talk about after it happens. They have continually sought this and this has never been offered to them by MCC. Not good.

MCC has only done an external investigation into one case from the 73 cases reported to MAST, and the result of that external investigation is more pain for the victims. MCC itself has employees in the area of “Abuse Response and Prevention.” I am curious whether these statements directly impacting survivors of abuse were vetted through your experts on survivor issues, or were they crafted by human resources and your lawyers? 

I encourage MCC to agree to the parameters John and Anička are proposing for a meeting, an open and transparent meeting where they can tell their story. A meeting where an apology for harm that MCC did can be delivered in person.  

I think we all agree that if MCC wants to share God’s love through relief, development and peace, it should not hurt its employees, and it should try to right the harm it does do. I encourage you at your upcoming board meetings to discuss this vital topic of an external third-party investigation of how MCC investigates abuse complaints. Release former employees from NDA agreements so you can hear whether abuse happened. Consult survivor advocacy groups before you release media statements, to help you recognize how you may be revictimizing those you hurt. 

I know that MCC wants to and can do better! Thanks for reading this letter and blessings as you deliberate about the work of MCC. 

I have given MAST permission to share this on their website. I am employed as Chaplain and Assistant Professor of Theological Studies at Conrad Grebel University College; this letter reflects my own personal opinion and not the position of my employer.

Carol Penner

4433 Victoria Ave.

Vineland Station, ON  L0R 2E0