Campaign letter writer responds to Ann Graber Hershberger’s recent letter
Recently, the authors of the October letter writing campaign received an email from Ann Graber Hershberger and Ken Kim (MCC US and MCC Canada executive directors). In it, they outline actions MCC has taken in response to some of the requests from the letter writers, as well as giving explanations as to why MCC is not following through with all of them. Specific actions asked of MCC included that MCC initiate an external 3rd party investigation into the allegations of abuse being made known to MAST, that MCC agree to the parameters for a facilitated conversation between their board members and John Clarke and Anicka Fast, and that MCC revoke the NDAs they required many people to sign at the time of their bad endings with MCC. Below, Dwight Krehbiel (one of the original letter writers, a former MCC service worker, and a member of Bethel College Mennonite Church) responds to Ann with a clear, detailed analysis. (Dwight has given permission to MAST to post this letter online.)
Dear Ann Hershberger,
It is interesting to see how the MCC response to abuse allegations has shifted gradually over time. The picture you portray has changed slightly though you maintain the air of an authoritative response. I believe that a more accurate portrayal of the situation is that you have lost control of the narrative about MCC abuse. The many voices of abused workers and their supporters and advocates tell a different story that many of us find more credible than yours. I do not believe that you are recapturing that control, especially because of the continued veil of secrecy to which you cling. That is an overview of my reaction to your letter. Please see my more detailed responses to your letter in their context below:
On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 2:38 PM Ann Graber Hershberger wrote:
Dear Dwight Krehbiel,
We wanted to follow up on the letters that MCC U.S. national and regional boards received from you and others last October. Thank you for your ongoing care of MCC.
As noted in a response letter from Emerson Lesher, MCC U.S. board chair, and Ron Ratzlaff, MCC Canada board chair, to you in the fall, we shared your letters with the MCC U.S. and Canadian boards and discussed them at the U.S. board gatherings in Akron. Following those and subsequent meetings, we want to respond directly to some of the requests you made and describe some of the steps MCC has taken before and since October to address concerns made by former MCC workers.
Many of you requested that MCC boards meet with Anicka Fast and John Clarke in a facilitated conversation. Two board representatives did so, not just once, but in five multi-hour sessions over a three-month period. We also extended an individual invitation to two other MCC former service workers, who expressed concern that no one had previously reached out to them to directly hear their stories. Two regional board members met with them in a listening session. Ann also offered to be present at the listening session, but the couple declined her offer of participation. We continue to meet with others who reach out to MCC and have participated in a number of listening conversations over the past year.
Listening is surely a good thing. If that listening is not accompanied by a commitment to address the issues raised by the former workers, little is accomplished. Those who have participated in the conversations report that they appreciated the listening but were disturbed by the evident unwillingness (inability?) to hold MCC leaders accountable for the harm that has been done. This failure of accountability has been amply documented in the facilitators' report of the conversation you mentioned above (link to report at https://www.mccabusesurvivors.org/mastnews/facilitators-report). Note that the refusal to continue the conversation was also experienced as harmful by the survivors, reminding them of their previous experiences. With regard to the other two former service workers you mention, please consider the possibility that they could not bring themselves to participate in a conversation with Ann because her actions in their case seemed so harmful.
Many of you requested that MCC commit to further independent external investigation into “allegations of abuse and MCC’s handling of these allegations.” For a variety of reasons, MCC has declined to do so. Some former employees have told MCC they do not want their stories reopened or investigated. MCC must balance the need to protect other involved parties in various employee disputes. Many of the stories are over ten years old and many of the employees who would have knowledge of those stories (including supervisors, country representatives, and HR staff) are no longer employed by MCC. MCC generally only maintains personnel files for up to ten years. Recognizing that some employees might not feel comfortable reaching out directly to MCC, MCC is nonetheless open to listening to anyone who wants to tell us their story. For reporting suspected abuse of power, here is the independent external site for reporting concerns.
Your continuing refusal to allow a truly independent external investigation is further evidence of your lack of commitment to transparency, but rather hiding the truth about abuses of MCC from its constituents. The idea that you are doing this to protect survivors is not credible. Are we to believe that the dozens of abuse reports against MCC arose because of how committed you are to protecting survivors? That you are still open to further listening does not enhance your credibility. Please consider why anyone would want to tell you their story when there is so little evidence that previous stories have led to substantive changes at MCC. Indeed Anicka Fast and John Clarke have been advised by the facilitators against any further engagement with MCC because it is so traumatizing (see report link above). In other words, MCC has a history of treating survivors so harshly that it is actually harmful for them even to engage in a listening session. An offer to survivors by MCC to listen may not only be unwelcome but also lead to perpetration of further trauma.
Many of you requested that MCC release former staff from nondisclosure agreements (NDAs). As MCC has stated previously and publicly, MCC has used nondisclosure, confidentiality, and nondisparagement agreements on occasion in the past. Our staff is aware of fewer than ten NDAs that have been used in the U.S. context. We mention the U.S. number because many MCCs around the world keep their own HR files. Like other employers (including many nonprofits), MCC has used these legal agreements to allow all parties to reach a mutually beneficial resolution to a conflict and to allow both parties to close a particular work chapter and move on. MCC has also used these types of agreements in situations where, due to MCC’s work in areas of political sensitivity, instability, and conflict, it is important to safeguard and keep confidential information about other involved employees or partners. Those agreements and clauses have been used after legal counsel has reviewed the situation and made the recommendation. In some cases, the departing employees have requested an NDA in order for their future employment to not be affected by their performance while employed by MCC. Although MCC is not inclined to release all former staff from nondisclosure agreements, MCC is certainly open to considering requests on a case-by-case basis.
You continue to deny the significance of non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements in these many abuse cases although the evidence that has emerged publicly indicates that more than 20% of MCC abuse cases in the past decade involve such agreements. Having read the non-disclosure agreement offered to John Clarke and Anicka Fast, I was stunned to realize the legal complexity of the document. It seemed clear that it would be unadvisable for anyone to sign such a document without the careful advice of a trusted lawyer. How many MCC workers would have access to such advice? How would they pay for it? Doesn't this document provide more evidence of an extreme imbalance of power between the worker and MCC? That this imbalance of power and MCC's failure to consider it was a major factor in the trauma experienced by Fast and Clarke is also shown clearly in the report of the facilitated conversation.
Why are MCC personnel policies and practices so litigious? Here is a quote from the MCC website: "MCC, a worldwide ministry of Anabaptist churches, shares God’s love and compassion for all in the name of Christ by responding to basic human needs and working for peace and justice. MCC envisions communities worldwide in right relationship with God, one another and creation." Love, compassion, peace, justice -- none of these seem obvious in the many survivors' stories. Rather we see abrupt terminations of employment, decisions driven by legal arguments, and refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing when harmful actions are reported.
We also want to share some of the many recent steps MCC has taken to care for its staff, in case you are not aware. These include: 1) Contracting a firm for an external investigation into the matter involving Anicka Fast and John Clarke; 2) Expanding MCC’s Human Resources (HR) capacity; 3) Embedding HR specialists in regions around the world; 4) Creating a new position entitled International Program Associate HR Director to better support International Program staff across the globe; 5) Adding the new role of International Equity Director to ensure concerns of all staff are elevated so equal weight is given to those not from dominant cultures; 6) Better integrating restorative practices into all our work; 7) Reviewing and strengthening our policies around conflict, harassment, grievance and abuse of power, including a review of the Speak Up Service; 8) Initiating a regular benchmarked all employee satisfaction survey; and 9) Providing expanded counseling benefits for staff serving in International Program. We also participated with other Anabaptist agencies to reflect and write about stewarding our workers as Anabaptist agencies. These actions, and others, can be found here: Committed to Learning, Growing and Changing.
1. It has been clear from the beginning that the investigation of the case of Anicka Fast and John Clarke was not fully independent, and even at that the conclusions were quite critical of MCC.
2-4. Expansion of the human resources role at MCC seems unlikely to be a step forward since HR played a major role in a number of abuse cases. We need evidence that MCC leadership is not simply turning over authority to human resources instead of being accountable themselves.
7. The problem with the Speak Up service is that there has never been credible evidence that reports to the service were in any way confidential. Is that issue being addressed? Please recognize how few reasons you have given survivors to trust a service like this.
Again, thank you for your interest in and care for MCC. MCC is a ministry of worldwide churches, and our supporters span this continent and others. The boards looked carefully at the questions raised in your letter and directed us as staff to continue to prioritize care for our workers. Should you have further questions, please reach out to either of us.
We remain committed to care for MCC staff and to also care for the larger ministry God has entrusted to us. We hope that you will continue with us on this journey. Thank you.
The stories of MCC abuse have now dragged on for years. The denials and refusals have revealed MCC's unwillingness to face the truth in these many allegations. Denying that people have been harmed only exacerbates the harm. Few survivors of MCC's abuse appear to believe that they have received an adequate acknowledgment of the harm, let alone an apology for it.
In an incident that was perpetrated by MCC within the walls of our own church building, our complaint received almost no response. We were made to feel that it was inappropriate for us to expect a response from MCC. Those of us who submitted the complaint were almost all former MCC workers. The posture of MCC in this matter seemed to me extremely arrogant and dismissive, acting as though our commitment to MCC was an obligation. It was hard to see peace and justice in MCC's actions in this case.
The theme of treating your constituents in an arrogant manner is also apparent in the many public statements that MCC makes. You treat abuse survivors and those who support them as though they are unable to think for themselves, providing "patient" explanations of matters that they might "not understand." They can think for themselves and they do. They see through the prevarications and the half truths and, hence, do not believe your accounts.
I have concluded that the evidence of widespread abuse by MCC makes it impossible for me to support MCC financially and that instead a just response would be to transfer that support to survivors. That is what I have begun to do and plan to advocate with others.
Sincerely yours,
Dwight Krehbiel