MAST responds to MCC’s “monograph” of “apology”
MCC has published a “monograph” which it is calling “an apology.” Read it here or at https://mcc.org/media/document/140523
MCC board chairs shared the document with Anicka and John in an email, summarizing it as “an apology from MCC for the places we’ve fallen short in handling staff concerns, including concerns you raised during your employment with MCC” and reiterating their commitment to the upcoming facilitated conversation as a way to “listen deeply to each other and better understand the facts surrounding your particular case.” MAST has learned that MCC leaders also shared the document with others who have inquired. Some survivors are reaching out to us and asking, “What’s up? Is MCC apologizing? Does that mean my story is not worth sharing anymore?” Some church leaders are reaching out to MAST members and suggesting that this sounds like evidence that MCC is on the right path.
Although we recognize that MCC does express regret and apology in their document, and although we hope that this reflects an authentic desire somewhere within MCC to do the right thing, ultimately we do not consider this to be an acceptable apology. To us, this comes across primarily as further damage control, minimization, and denial – a classic “fauxpology.” How can MCC issue a statement like this and call it an apology while stating in its latest public statement that “claims of systemic abuse are unequivocally false”?
In its statement, MCC consistently minimizes the allegations and the harm, referring to workers who “experienced pain” or “left MCC feeling wounded,” while taking responsibility only in a vague way for unspecified occasions when MCC “systems were slow, unresponsive or dismissive,” when policies were not shared properly or communication “devalued or disempowered” workers. MCC claims that “resolution” has occurred in cases of staff separation from MCC, implying that they are now wrapping up the final step of an apology after taking appropriate action in response to all the allegations. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Each time a public message is given which claims to apologize for harm done, without any admission of specific wrongdoing or discussion of accountability for abusers or restitution for those harmed, it causes deeper pain. Each time a public message is given to claim that NDAs are protecting all parties without acknowledging that they are being used to cover up allegations of abuse and as a condition for workers to receive severance payments that they are entitled to, it causes more harm. Whenever the abusive endings people experienced with MCC are referred to as "separation agreements," when they are in reality involuntary terminations or resignations under duress, it causes more harm. Each time MCC claims to follow a restorative process, when “restoration” is not what is being experienced by the victims, it causes more harm.
MAST is aware of more than 50 cases of abuse that include allegations of sexual assault, harmful responses to sexual assault including forced mediation with an alleged abuser, psychological harassment, sexual harassment, bullying, gaslighting, firing workers while they are sick, financial misconduct, covering up corruption, gross neglect of workers’ safety, threatening workers to sign an NDA, and firing those who raise concerns about abuses. MAST does not claim that these experiences represent the typical experience of MCC workers. We know that many MCC workers have positive experiences – as many of us also did before things began to go wrong. But when serious allegations are made, they must be investigated, even and especially if senior MCC staff from multiple departments (executive leadership, HR, and others, in the US, Canada, and internationally) are named in allegations. And yet, none of the allegations we are aware of have yet been investigated as part of a credible external investigation. (Are you confused about MCC’s use of the term “external investigation” to refer to an investigation by Veritas Solutions in which MCC fully controlled the scope, the choice of investigator and the distribution of the final report? So are we. Read our full analysis here.)
MCC’s vague apologies for poor communication and unclear policies are offensive in light of the seriousness of the allegations, and look like a way to pacify donors while failing to get to the bottom of what actually occurred.
We are tired of having to find ways to respond to these kinds of harmful communications from MCC. Thankfully, several allies have stepped up to advocate on our behalf.
Stephanie Krehbiel, Executive Director of Into Account, says,
“I find this ‘monograph’ to be another deliberate mischaracterization of your case, and the remainder of it seems to be a split between inadequate half-apologies, self-aggrandizement, passive aggression, and a not-particularly-subtle effort to divide and conquer by casting the concerns of survivors as somehow counter to the needs and desires of “non-dominant cultures.” This is not a taking of responsibility. This is equivocation laced with underhanded digs.”
Read more thoughts from Stephanie on accountability in Mennonite institutions here.
Kim Thiessen, a former MCC worker and former acting Executive Director of MCC Alberta, has written to MCC Executive Directors and board chairs. She says,
“No amount of pastoral language and beautiful pictures from around the world in a 12 page spread will bring healing to people whose lives have been devastated. Take the profoundly critical first step of apologizing personally to the people MCC has hurt…People who have been hurt by MCC do not trust MCC. But you [Executive Directors and board chairs] and your board members have the power to make this right. Why have you refused to do so?”
See other letters from Kim to MCC leaders in our Supporters page.
Julene Fast, a member of the MAST steering committee and an ally with survivors of MCC’s abuse, writes,
“For those of us who rely on MCC to do humanitarian and peace work around the world: where is our voice? Is this the kind of peace work we are fine with? Do the ones who signed up gladly and wholeheartedly to serve with MCC, and whose lives have now been shattered by the very people and offices they trusted, and who because of that have experienced such a devastating setback in so many ways – do they have to be the ones shouldering this load? … Is it not imperative if we want to speak peace and justice throughout the world that we insist the leaders of MCC speak personally to those they have so deeply hurt, acknowledging their wrongdoing and pleading for forgiveness? Revising policies, restructuring and giving public lip service to apologies are like bile in the throat to those who have been so deeply hurt and scarred”.
Read the rest of her statement, shared with MC Canada leaders in a recent meeting, here.
We continue to insist that progress toward restoration and healing needs to begin not with vague pseudo-apologies that seem designed to placate and reassure. While it could be appropriate for MCC leaders to apologize for their appalling lack of response so far to serious allegations of abuse, any detailed apology for wrongdoing in specific cases needs to be preceded by truth-telling and accompanied by accountability for those who are found to have abused their power. Such truth-telling cannot occur within a “listening process” that is ultimately controlled by MCC. It requires an external investigation into all cases of abuse, in which survivors’ input and voice can shape an appropriate process (including the choice of investigative firm and the mandate and scope of the investigation). We invite you to get involved by clearly communicating to MCC that its current discourse is unacceptable and expressing your commitment to such an investigation (see our suggestions for communicating with MCC leaders here).
Want some fun further reading about the ingredients of a “felicitous” apology? See this article, https://sorrywatch.com/more-on-the-science-of-apology/. Want an example of a public institutional apology by a Mennonite institutional leader that meets these criteria? See Sara Wenger Shenk’s apology to survivors of abuse by John Howard Yoder here (and read her recent thoughts on the topic in relation to MCC’s abuse, responding to an analysis by Anicka, here).