The previous post is a copy of our most recent communication with MCC administrators. As you will see in the letter, we are ending our call to withhold funds. We are ready to put our energies toward other anti-racist efforts within Anabaptist circles, and frankly, we haven’t seen much to celebrate in MCC’s response to our call for greater anti-racist accountability.

We hope and believe that the Anti-Racist Accountability document sent to MCC and included at the bottom of the post will be a helpful resource to anyone seeking to be more accountable to communities of color. Visitors to the blog are welcome and encouraged to put it to good use!

In solidarity and with hope,

The Anti-Racism Constituent Action Group

Dear MCC chairs and executive directors,

In response to our concern about an intensifying pattern of people of color leaving MCC on bad terms, our group published an open letter calling for MCC constituents who were concerned about patterns of institutional racism in MCC to withhold 50 percent of their normal giving unless actions were taken to address the situation. One of the actions that we were calling for is increased accountability to communities of color.

At a follow up meeting with you in December 2009, you reported the following efforts to make MCC accountable to communities of color (From Arli Klassen’s report December 8, 2009):

1. The US Anti-Racism Reference Group was to have its first meeting before the end of March 2010.
2. MCC Bi-national is working on increasing the number of country programs with local advisory committees. MCC US is working on increasing the number of program reference groups for MCCs in the US. For the beginning of the fiscal year in April 2010, both MCC bi-national and MCC US will have concrete measurable targets to achieve during the 2010/2011 fiscal year in ensuring functioning advisory/reference committees, and can be held accountable for meeting those targets.
3. MCC Bi-national has a delegate body that meets once a year, composed of representatives from all the supporting denominations (MCC US does not have a comparable delegate body). MC USA appoints 6 delegates to the Bi-national delegate body. MCC Bi-national will ask MC USA to ensure that 1-2 of their delegates are people selected by the affinity groups of color within MC USA, and accountable back to both MC USA and those affinity groups of color.  Both MCC US and MCC BN already have policy regarding a minimum number of people of color on their respective governance bodies.

As part of the discussion at the December meeting, we also heard you asking “What are you (constituents) asking us (MCC executives) to do in order to be more accountable?” We have spent a great deal of time working on the enclosed document. The document is our attempt to respond to your request clarifying what we mean by being accountable to communities of color. It has been a valuable process for us as a group and we hope it will be a valuable resource for you as well.

We would like to suggest that as you read the enclosed document, you consider recent decisions or actions by MCC in which you were involved. By using your experiences as case studies, you will be able to consider the principles of accountability as applied to practical, “real-life” experiences. We have found the cycle of action and reflection to be an essential practice in becoming clearer on what it means to be accountable. Below, we also offer suggestions of some recent MCC actions/decisions we are aware of that could be used in this way as one reads through the accountability principles. How did MCC do in making itself accountable to communities of color in these specific situations? What successes can MCC build on? What mistakes can MCC learn from for the future?

Possible recent case studies for MCC’s accountability to US/Canadian communities of color:

1. New wine/New wineskins process, including composition of decision-making bodies as well as decision-making processes
2. The selection of Sudan and creation of the Sudan: Coming Home campaign as an ongoing commitment for MCC resources and fundraising
3. Recent changes in MCC’s Civil Disobedience policy, changes that came about at least partly in response to the decision of MCC Central States to support one of its workers who was facing the possibility of being involved in actions of civil disobedience
4. Recent changes made by MCC regarding its salary structure

We hope this document answers some of your questions about what we meant in our call to MCC to strengthen its structural accountability to communities of color.

We continue to have concerns about the future direction of MCC and its commitment to becoming an antiracist institution. Each of us brought a sense of caring for MCC and longing for it to be the best that it could be to our writing of the open letter and our efforts since it was published. We had hoped that this call from constituents might spur MCC to strengthen its commitment to antiracism and to take positive actions that would result in us ending our call to withhold funds with celebration. We are saddened that we haven’t seen evidence of that sort of response. However, from this point on, we no longer plan to work at organizing MCC constituents to call the institution to strengthen its commitment to antiracism. We plan to close the petition that we have posted on the web and to communicate to the persons who signed it and to the Damascus Road network what we are communicating with you here.

We have made this decision because we would like instead to focus our energies on supporting new anti-racist initiatives emerging within the Anabaptist community that have encouraged and energized us. We all have limited time and must make choices regarding where we believe our involvement is mostly likely to bear fruit. We are also confident that MCC has many internal resources that can be of great assistance to you in shepherding MCC on its antiracism journey, including processing the ideas in this document.

Toward that end, we are copying Rick Derksen, MCC’s antiracism coordinator, so he will also have a copy of the accountability document that we have developed. As a next step, we encourage you to involve and utilize current antiracism leaders within MCC, such as Rick, in discussing these principles of antiracist accountability, applying them to the whole of MCC, and ultimately building greater institutional accountability to Canadian and US communities of color.

We wish for you wisdom and courage in the work that you do.

In Peace and Hope,
Tim Barr, Calenthia Dowdy, Brenda Zook Friesen, Karissa Ortman Loewen, Conrad Moore, Yvonne Platts, Tobin Miller Shearer, Regina Shands Stoltzfus
The Anti-Racism Constituent Action Group

Accountability Final Version
White Supremacy Culture

After time spent reporting by both MCC administrators and the constituents, our conversation settled on the three original stipulations in the letter submitted on May 26, 2009. We collectively agreed that another anti-racism audit was not needed at this time but that implementation of past studies and reports is far more essential. While we stressed the importance of freeing up staff members time to work effectively at anti-racism inside the institution, we as signers did not feel that was a point about which we needed additional discussion. We could not reach agreement, however, on the implementation of structural accountability to oppressed communities of color.

MCC administrators and chairs did agree to take action on four points within the next three months:
1)   actualize accountability committees for MCC US and MCC bi-national that will meet with the anti-racism coordinator position in MCC currently held by Rick Derksen;
2)   hold an organization-wide gathering of people of color within MCC for those so interested;
3)   ask Mennonite Church U.S.A. to have one or two of their delegates to the MCC bi-national delegate body be appointed by existing racial/ethic caucuses in that denomination;
4)   increase the number of reference groups for MCC bi-national’s country programs and the number of reference groups for MCC U.S.’s program reference groups.

While members of the group of constituent members affirmed these steps, we did not feel that they answered our call for the executive committees of MCC U.S., Bi-national, and Canada to make themselves structurally accountable for their anti-racist actions to independent groups of people of color who are knowledgeable about MCC in North America and able to identify and articulate institutional racism. As a result, we chose not to withdraw our request for withholding fifty percent of contributions to MCC at this time.

MCC administrators and board chairs did ask us for more detailed information on what such accountability relationships would look like and we have agreed to consider that request in the next weeks.

Your feedback and questions are welcome as discern how best to proceed from this point forward.

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.

We pray this finds each of you well, having a meaningful time at the Mennonite Convention in Columbus.  Again, we express our regret that so few of us were able to attend convention this year.  It would have been ideal for all of us to sit together and discuss this further.  We look forward to scheduling a conference call in the near future.  In the meantime, we submit this letter in the hopes we can clarify several points and to address some additional concerns.

We appreciate your response to us.  We readily admit that our process has not been perfect. We are doing our best to consider all the feedback we have received and will continue to evaluate our approach based on its impact.  At this point, we feel that much energy and time has gone into criticizing our organizing approach, our roles, and our analysis.  We welcome constructive feedback and reflection; however, we had hoped most time and energy would be focused on considering steps that MCC could take to address the ongoing racism within the institution.  The question remains for us:  What will make this juncture different in the history of MCC?

From our original letter, we would like to reiterate actions that MCC could take that would be indicators of significant progress towards dismantling racism in MCC:
1)    MCC follows through on its current intention to undergo an independent anti-racism audit of both existing and proposed structures of the entire institution;
2)    the executive committees of MCC U.S., Bi-national, and Canada have made themselves structurally accountable for their anti-racist actions to independent groups of people of color who are knowledgeable about MCC in North America and able to identify and articulate institutional racism;
3)    the internal MCC anti-racism teams are given time, financial resources, and demonstrable authority to carry out their respective missions.

Our hope is that we can engage in fruitful conversation about these points and collaborate in our shared goal of addressing institutional racism within MCC.  We understand and acknowledge that there are some change processes in progress in MCC.  At this point, we feel a need to call for a new level of commitment to anti-racism.

We want to respond to some of your concerns here, in hopes that we can find a way to move past these issues and focus on the question at hand.

First, we are sharing this letter with members of the Damascus Road (DR) listserv, as we did with our initial letter.  We regret to learn that this has caused some controversy and confusion.  We posted the letter with the understanding that the Damascus Road listserv is an open community for anyone who has attended a DR anti-racism analysis training.  We are each subscribers and for us, this was a natural place to connect with others who are working to dismantle systemic racism.  Our letter and accompanying petition are not initiatives of Damascus Road, but something in which the broader DR network may have interest.

Second, we realize the confusion about the role of Damascus Road was magnified by the fact several signers are trainers with DR.  In our lives, each of us fills various roles and positions.  Many of us have previously served as MCC volunteers and staff.  Several of us are currently contracted as Damascus Road trainers.   We are all MCC constituents and signed the letter in this capacity.  We are aware now that this distinction is not clear and has caused confusion both within and outside of MCC.  We are sorry about this and will do our best to clear it up.  Regardless, we feel it is our responsibility (as constituents, trainers, alumni, etc) to voice our concern about the racism within the organization we serve.  We care deeply about the future of MCC and its ability to become anti-racist.

Third, we understand the ethical concerns about asking constituents to withhold donations, while diverting funds to Damascus Road (an MCC U.S. program).  From what we know of MCC’s financial structure, if people would decide to designate funds to Damascus Road (versus other MCC funds), this essentially has NO financial impact on MCC’s overall budget.  The exception would be if the amount of money designated for Damascus Road exceeded its total projected budget.    For us, this action 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 different financial impact.

Lastly, we are greatly troubled to hear reports that people of color within MCC are receiving the brunt of criticism and questions about our letter.  People of color within MCC are already in a difficult and stressful position of serving a white-controlled organization with a history of institutional racism.  The fact that people of color are “taking the heat” for something in which they had no part is further evidence that MCC has room to grow.

We have not given up on MCC – quite the opposite.  We have devoted countless hours praying, discerning, and consulting (with people of color inside and outside of MCC).  We have heard some reports of positive anti-racist organizing that is happening within MCC and we want to do all we can to support and build on that important work.  It is our intention that the withholding of funds will be temporary.  It is also our hope that there will be significant movement in MCC’s anti-racist journey, and that we will all be able to celebrate together.

There are numerous other points you raised in your letter which we would prefer to address during our anticipated phone conversation.  Other constituents have also raised questions and points for clarification.  As a result, we have worked with other constituents to compile a list of Frequently Asked Questions.  We are attaching this for your reference, and will be including it with our original letter when distributed.  This will potentially clarify some of the other concerns you have raised.

We have greatly valued the individual conversations we’ve been able to have with you and look forward to our collective conference call.  It is easy for us all to become trapped in the ways that racism can divide us.  Instead, we want to move together toward God’s vision of a redeemed community.

With continued hope,

Tim Barr, Calenthia Dowdy, Brenda Zook Friesen, Karissa Ortman Loewen, Conrad Moore, Yvonne Platts, Tobin Miller Shearer, Regina Shands Stoltzfus

Thank you for your letter of response, and for your invitation to work together with your board and staff towards positive change.  We would like to accept that invitation.  We are currently working on a longer more substantial response that addresses some of the issues raised in your letter.

In the meantime, we wanted to respond to your invitation for dialogue during the Mennonite Church USA Convention in Columbus.  We especially value opportunities to talk face to face, and we appreciate the suggestion of meeting during the convention. Unfortunately, very few members of our group plan to be there.  Considering the fact that members of our group live in various places, it may be most practical for us to talk with you by phone. Perhaps we can schedule such a meeting some time after the assembly.

We signed our letter in hope.  We have not given up on MCC.  The actions we have taken are signs of our deep caring and commitment to the work of anti-racism within MCC.

We invite you to sign the Open Letter to MCC regarding antiracism by pointing your browsers to: http://www.petitiononline.com/mcc/petition.html

We also are greatly in need of members of the Damascus Road Antiracism Network to get friends, family members, and congregations to sign on to the letter as well.

This effort will only be effective if people add their voices and signatures to the letter.

Arli Klassen – MCC Executive Director
Herman Bontrager – MCC Board Chairperson
Rolando Santiago – MCC US Executive Director
Ann Graber Hershberger – MCC US Chairperson
Don Peters – MCC Canada Executive Director
Neil Janzen – MCC Canada Chairperson

Dear MCC chairs and executive directors,

We write to you as constituents who are concerned about the strength of MCC’s commitment to anti-racism. We have noted over the last number of months cause for both celebration and concern. Several of you have stated your commitment to an anti-racist agenda and, at least within MCC US, are planning for a limited anti-racism audit. Likewise, participants in the New Wineskins process have recommended that “justice and peace-building” become a mission priority of the organization. These are hopeful signs. At the same time, staffing cuts and resignations have resulted in a disproportionate loss of people of color at the leadership levels of the organization. We are aware of many other people of color who have left MCC under undesirable circumstances in the last three decades.

These events point to a recurring pattern. MCC has a history of being confronted about racist practices, committing itself to reform, and then returning to old ways. For example, in 1979 African-American leaders in the Mennonite church pointed out that Mennonite Central Committee was “a racist institution which believes in equality but does not practice it in all areas of its involvement.”[f1]  Meetings between Mennonite Church Black Caucus leaders and MCC administrators followed, as did assurances that change would ensue. Yet, reports in 1993, 1998, 2001, 2003, and 2005 testified to ongoing problems that remained unaddressed.[f2]

We refuse to believe that MCC has to perpetuate this cycle of confrontation, commitment, and failure to act. At the same time, we remain hopeful that concrete challenge from constituent members will bring about a different result. To that end, as a first step we are committing ourselves and will encourage our congregations to withhold fifty percent of our normal MCC contributions until such time as:

1)    MCC follows through on its current intention to undergo an independent anti-racism audit of both existing and proposed structures of the entire institution;
2)    the executive committees of MCC U.S., Bi-national, and Canada have made themselves structurally accountable for their anti-racist actions to independent groups of people of color who are knowledgeable about MCC in North America and able to identify and articulate institutional racism;
3)    the internal MCC anti-racism teams are given time, financial resources, and demonstrable authority to carry out their respective missions.

We invite signers to send their withheld funds to anti-racism organizations such as People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond, Crossroads Ministries, or Damascus Road until such time as these actions have been taken. Addresses for these organizations appear below.

We ask to meet with the executive directors named above, the MCC Anti-Racism Coordinator, and members of that office’s Community Reference Council by September 1, 2009, to evaluate whether these actions have been taken. Based on the outcome of that meeting, we will then either invite signatories of this letter to return to their and their congregations’ normal giving patterns or encourage continued and increased withholding.

We make these commitments with the clear understanding that we, as constituency members, are connected to this organization and wish only the best for its continued success. At the same time, the recurring history of actions harmful to people of color and beneficial to white people demands bolder action than we have previously taken. We hope that this action will be the first step in an ongoing conversation with you about MCC’s anti-racism practices.

We remain, in good hope,

[signatures]

Addresses of Anti-racism Organizations:

The People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond
601 N. Carrollton
New Orleans, LA 70119
http://www.pisab.org/

Crossroads Ministries
P.O. Box 309
Matteson, IL 60443-0309
http://www.crossroadsantiracism.org/

Damascus Road
21 S. 12th St.
PO Box 500
Akron, Pennsylvania 17501-0500
http://mcc.org/damascusroad/

[f1]  Dwight McFadden to William T. Snyder, June 14, 1979, Elkhart, IN. Available from Mennonite Church Archives, Goshen, IN, I-6-7 African-American Mennonite Association, Records, 1969, 1976-91, Box 28 (Large), Folder Mennonite Central Committee 28/1.

[f2]  Memorandum by Rick Derksen, “Recommendations from Various MCC Diversity/Culture/Racism Reports,” July 7, 2008, Akron, PA.

Many of us were deeply troubled to learn of the dismissal of our colleague and friend Dionicio Acosta from MCC East Coast earlier this year. His termination came on the heels of the resignation of MCC Human Resources Director Kathy Jackson. Together, the departures of these two talented people of color reminded us of how much work remains to be done within MCC. Based on our relationships with Dionicio and Kathy, we have felt called to act with a new sense of urgency. We are prompted further to take new action based on documentation of MCC’s recurrent inability to make substantive anti-racism changes and the emerging record of people of color who have departed from MCC in recent years whether in large or small part due to frustrations stemming from institutional racism. Thus we are inviting all members of MCC’s constituency who care about MCC’s future as an anti-racist organization to join us in signing the following letter and taking the proposed action.  We would be delighted to talk with you further about our reasons for proposing this action.

Sincerely,

Tim Barr, Calenthia Dowdy, Brenda Zook Friesen, Karissa Ortman Loewen, Conrad Moore, Yvonne Platts, Tobin Miller Shearer, Regina Shands Stoltzfus