As the initial signers of the letter to Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) regarding institutional racism, we realize more information may be needed than we could include in the letter. It is our hope that this list of Frequently Asked Questions will clarify some of our purpose and intent, as well as background for the letter. If you have further questions, or would value more discussion, please feel free to contact any or all of us. We welcome the opportunity to grow together in our understanding and implementation of anti-racism.
The issues addressed in this FAQ include the following. (Responses follow the list)
1. Why is this action being taken now?
2. Employee turnover is a reality in any workplace. How do you know racism was involved in the situations you cited? Why should it matter if MCC loses a few employees?
3. Is racism a bigger problem in MCC than elsewhere? Why is this action being taken against MCC?
4. Is withholding funds the best, or only, option to effect change?
5. Who is the group that has created this petition? Why were so many Damascus Road trainers involved in writing this letter?
6. We have heard that there are people of color within MCC who do not support this action. Is that true?
7. Why was the Damascus Road listserv used to circulate the petition?
8. Why are you bringing this to boards and executive directors?
9. You are inviting constituents to withhold funds from MCC, and yet you suggest Damascus Road (an MCC U.S. program) as an alternative place to send donations. This is confusing and raises ethical questions. What is this about?
10. In the expectations, it appears that numbers 1) and 3) are already in progress in some way. Won’t it be difficult for MCC to fully fund and carry out those programs if constituents withhold their funds?
11. Could you clarify what is meant in the petition by the second expectation that the executive committees of MCC U.S., Bi-national, and Canada make themselves “structurally accountable to independent groups of people of color”?
12. Is this related to the New Wineskins process?
13. What communications have happened with leadership at MCC regarding the letter and the petition? What has been the response from MCC leadership since they were made public?
1. Why is this action being taken now?
Many of us have been troubled for some time by how people of color experience MCC compared to white people. In the past year or so there have been several instances where people of color who were employed by MCC have been fired, laid off or chosen to leave MCC because of difficulties they experienced during their employment. Rather than being isolated events, these are part of larger patterns in human resources at MCC spanning several decades. We’ve named two specific people of color who have left MCC in the last few months, but our purpose was to call attention to the larger pattern and history of the employment of people of color within MCC.
2. Employee turnover is a reality in any workplace. How do you know racism was involved in the situations you cited? Why should it matter if MCC loses a few employees?
We could spend time dissecting who left MCC for what reasons, and how racism was or wasn’t a part of that process. The experience of the individuals affected in any individual situation matters deeply, however in some cases, this involves confidential information. Dionicio Acosta and Kathy Jackson are both aware that they are named in the introduction to this petition, but our concern is about the overall patterns of disenfranchising people of color–how budget cuts, HR policies, and institutional culture disproportionately affect people of color within MCC.
Institutional racism rarely manifests as overt, illegal discrimination. Institutional racism is about the power to maintain structures, policies and practices that reinforce the privileges and benefits of an institution for the dominant white group. It is often most evident in the effects of decisions and actions of well-intentioned representatives carrying out the well-intentioned policies, practices and directives of the institution. While any individual act of institutional racism might be dismissed as normal operating procedure, over time, the power and interests of the dominant white group will be preserved, as has often been the case within MCC.
One consequence of people of color leaving MCC is the effect it has on the relationship between MCC and the communities of people of color in its constituency. Relations with individuals, congregations, partners, organizations, schools, etc. are all affected by the experiences that individual members of these communities have as employees and leaders in MCC.
Another consequence to MCC is that there is immediate loss of diversity, especially loss in diversity of perspective, background, worldview, and relationships that bring value to the organization. People of color hired by MCC have unique competencies that are not always recognized by the organization. They know how to operate in their own communities as well as within the white cultural context. This means that they have unique knowledge about how to bridge cultures and communities and how to make MCC a more healthy and inclusive organization. As MCC increases its diversity and incorporates new voices into its structure and culture, it becomes healthier, more aware, and more inclusive of everyone. White people will benefit from this change as well as people of color.
Underlying differences at times contribute to conflicts between employees and with supervisors. MCC, like many employers, often chooses to resolve conflicts by letting go of people with perspectives that challenge the way things are being done. The result is that MCC misses major opportunities for learning and growth that would come through addressing and embracing conflict and new perspectives.
3. Is racism a bigger problem in MCC than elsewhere? Why is this action being taken against MCC?
No, but it’s not a smaller problem than elsewhere either. This action is not meant to be “against” MCC, but it is asking MCC to address issues related to what makes working for MCC difficult for so many qualified persons of color. MCC has already identified a commitment to anti-racism; our action calls on MCC to address issues that have been brought to its attention repeatedly over the past several decades. We care about MCC and want to see MCC follow through on its stated commitments.
Calling on MCC to improve its relationships with communities of people of color in the U.S. and Canada, as well as around the world, is a positive reminder of how much we want and expect this beloved organization to be a sign of God’s love in the world.
4. Is withholding funds the best, or only, option to effect change?
Not by any means. There are many options. However, it is also true that institutions tend to take things more seriously when money is involved. We and others have tried various approaches in the past including personal conversations, trainings, letters of lament, memos, filing racial grievances through the HR department, and public confrontations at board meetings. While there have been some changes, as the letter notes, the core problems remain. We know that for better or worse, money talks. This is a clear way that constituents can indicate our support for MCC and encourage its growth as an anti-racist organization.
We also spent time talking with numerous people of color, both within MCC and “outside” the organization, before submitting the letter. The conversations were largely in support of this approach.
After much deliberation, we decided that calling for withholding/diversion of giving was an appropriate tactic to take given the long-term nature of the problem.
5. Who is the group that has created this petition? Why were so many Damascus Road trainers involved in writing this letter?
All of the initial signers of the letter are constituents of MCC who are concerned about the anti-racist commitment of MCC. We care about the future of the institution. Some of us have previously worked as MCC employees. Many of us are Damascus Road trainers, but the letter and accompanying petition are not official actions of Damascus Road (DR). We understand now that this was not clear to everyone and created some confusion among those who thought that the letter represented an official position of the Damascus Road program.
We don’t think it is surprising that so many people involved with DR are involved in this action, given that anti-racist change within institutions is a passion that all of the signers share, and which some of the signers bring to their roles as DR trainers. We do want to clarify, however, that in writing the letter and seeking signers on the petition, all of us are acting as individual constituents.
6. We have heard that there are people of color within MCC who do not support this action. Is that true?
Yes, there are people of color within MCC who are not in support of the letter and the petition. This is not surprising given that differences of opinion exist among every group of people. Some white people agree with the strategy that we have chosen, and others do not. Some people of color agree with the strategy that we have chosen, and others do not. We are eager to work alongside and support all those who desire anti-racist changes within MCC, including those who take different approaches than we do. It is a primary commitment of ours to maintain relationship and communication with people who challenge our approach.
7. Why was the Damascus Road listserv used to circulate the petition?
The Damascus Road listserv has been created to facilitate communication among those who have attended a Damascus Road training and are interested in being involved in the work of anti-racism. Any member of the list may send emails to the list. Other posted messages do not represent official positions of the Damascus Road Program. Our letter was never intended to represent the Damascus Road program either. We saw distribution of the petition via the listserv as one way to reach people who share the hopes that are represented by this petition.
8. Why are you bringing this to boards and executive directors?
Boards of directors serve to represent the constituents of the organization in their role as governing bodies for the organization. MCC staff persons, including executive directors, answer to their boards and executive committees. Ultimately, we constituents are responsible for the decisions of the board, and hence the actions of the organization.
9. You are inviting constituents to withhold funds from MCC, and yet you suggest Damascus Road (an MCC U.S. program) as an alternative place to send donations. This is confusing and raises ethical questions. What is this about?
Intentionally redirecting money to anti-racism projects, or to programs or activities that are being done in anti-racist ways, emphasizes the need and priority for MCC to seriously address its own behaviors.
From what we know of MCC’s financial structure, if people would decide to designate funds to Damascus Road (versus other MCC programs or the general fund), this essentially has NO financial impact on MCC’s overall budget or the size of the budget devoted to Damascus Road unless the amount of money designated for Damascus Road exceeded its total projected budget. We did not see this as likely. For us, the action of designating funds for DR is primarily symbolic, a way for concerned constituents to support anti-racism work within MCC, while not jeopardizing overall funding. If constituents decide to divert funds to one of the other anti-racist organizations we listed, this would have a more deleterious financial impact on MCC.
10. In the expectations, it appears that numbers 1) and 3) are already in progress in some way. Won’t it be difficult for MCC to fully fund and carry out those programs if constituents withhold their funds?
It is our hope that a commitment would be made to fully implement these items well before an appreciable financial impact on the organization was felt. Also, since earmarking funds for Damascus Road has mostly a symbolic impact (see # 9 above), this would be an option for those who are particularly concerned about the financial impact on MCC.
11. Could you clarify what is meant in the petition by the second expectation that the executive committees of MCC U.S., Bi-national, and Canada make themselves “structurally accountable to independent groups of people of color”?
If it is to seriously address the problem in its relationships with employees who are people of color, MCC must realize that its guidance and direction in addressing racism must come from communities most affected by racism. If the underlying power dynamics in existing structures are not addressed, white people tend to maintain control, creating a kind of racist diversity that serves to reinforce status quo white power, even while claiming to work against racism.
People of color within MCC have long asked that the executive committees not simply rely on people of color within the MCC system, or on boards, to evaluate whether or not their efforts to dismantle racism are successful. This point asks that the boards identify a formal structure whereby they will be held accountable for actions that they claim will dismantle racism, specifically by people of color who are knowledgeable about institutional racism and MCC structures. In the past, efforts to evaluate the success of anti-racism action have been evaluated by those who benefit from the status quo. This is an effort to change this feedback loop.
12. Is this related to the New Wineskins process?
MCC is in a time of organizational re-structuring through the New Wine, New Wineskins process. As MCC considers its relationships with communities throughout the world, it needs also to consider its relationships with communities of people of color in the U.S. and Canada, including constituents, employees and partners. We believe that this time of organizational change is an excellent opportunity to carefully rethink how organizational structures and culture affect relationships with communities of people of color here “at home.”
13. What communications have happened with leadership at MCC regarding the letter and the petition? What has been the response from MCC leadership since they were made public?
The letter was sent to MCC leadership with the indication that the collection of signatures will be ongoing at least through September 1.
We understand that the letter and petition were discussed at the Kansas MCC meetings in early June. We received an official letter from the Executive Directors and Board Chairs of MCC US and MCC Binational on June 16, 2009. The letter indicated willingness to dialogue with the initial signers of the letter. We hope to be able to schedule a time soon for this dialogue to occur.
In the meantime, many of us who signed have also had individual conversations and written exchanges with a variety of leaders inside MCC, both before and since the publication of the petition.
You may recognize your own question in the above list. Thanks to the many constituents who have raised questions and deepened our dialogue. We are honored to be journeying with you.
