{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreid6xnchoncmqaiurstcqz2w7vorj7tskpvwtscymouecaj5qu4f5q",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:sl2hrcwo6voaorzsr26d3bo2/app.bsky.feed.post/3mp5i7dojlif2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreifgxn56q3qh7uc6hunjdjv243k34ui5wizsdjwubliixisvo5px54"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 450801
  },
  "description": "When a professional body removes a peer-reviewed article because it conflicts with organisational values, the issue is no longer a single publication, but the future of open inquiry, editorial independence, and professional disagreement. ",
  "path": "/nzccp-sets-a-precedent-of-censorship/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-25T22:30:36.000Z",
  "site": "https://goodoil.news",
  "tags": [
    "Dr Kumari Valentine",
    "Psychology at the Crossroads"
  ],
  "textContent": "Dr Kumari Valentine\n_Dunedin-based clinical psychologist_\n\nA few days ago, members of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists (NZCCP) received an email informing them that a published article (He Wero Ano: Don’t Just Tell Me, Show Me How Science and Psychology Are Racist in New Zealand, by A Mitchell) had been removed from the _Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists_. This article had been submitted in 2024 and been peer reviewed and then published in later 2025.\n\nThe reason given for the removal was not research fraud, plagiarism, ethical misconduct, or factual error. Rather, the NZCCP council determined that retaining the article was inconsistent with the values of the college and could perpetuate harm to Māori.\n\nAs a former editor of the _NZCCP_ journal for 11 years, I have no wish to debate the merits of the article itself. Instead, I want to reflect what principles might govern the removal of an article, offer my opinion about the purpose of a professional journal, discussion the implications of retraction, and discuss the precedent this might set, both in NZ and internationally.\n\n## **The Purpose of a Professional Journal**\n\nProfessional journals exist to facilitate dialogue, debate, scholarship, and critical reflection. They are not merely vehicles for organisational messaging. A healthy profession requires spaces where ideas can be proposed, challenged, refined, and sometimes rejected. Publication does not imply endorsement. It signifies that an idea has entered the professional conversation. Does a professional publication still retain its status when it can only portray certain values?\n\nThe _Journal of the NZCCP_ is the only journal specific to clinical psychologists in NZ and will thus be assumed to be following robust processes. What does the removal of an article, because of values of the organisation, show to the public and say about clinical psychology?\n\n## **The Difference Between Disagreement and Retraction**\n\nHistorically, articles have been retracted for reasons such as:\n\n• Fabrication or falsification of data\n\n• Plagiarism\n\n• Serious methodological flaws discovered after publication\n\n• Ethical breaches\n\n• Legal concerns\n\nDisagreement with an article's conclusions has generally been addressed through:\n\n• Letters to the editor\n\n• Published responses\n\n• Commentary\n\n• Debate\n\n• Further research\n\nIf a published article causes concern, there are alternatives to removal:\n\n• Commission responses\n\n• Publish rebuttals\n\n• Invite dialogue\n\n• Create forums for debate\n\n• Encourage critical engagement\n\nThese approaches expose ideas to scrutiny rather than erasing them from view. The distinction matters because scholarship advances through contestation, discussion, data where relevant, replication or replication attempts, sharing of different opinions, and insights.\n\nFrom a practical perspective, I wonder what will happen – will the journal be reissued electronically with the numbering of the entire journal changed? What about the discussions and referencing of this article (for example: Thomas, Val, and Sally Satel. “Uncontested ideas and real-world consequences: using a meta-critical post-progressive method to deconstruct the claims of activist therapy.”  _Theory and Society_ 55.2 (2026): 23). The discussions and references are to a now silent article.\n\n## **A Precedent**\n\nRemoval of an article is typically because of scientific misconduct or similar issues noted above. Instead, the rationale is that the article was inconsistent with organisational values and could cause harm. I could find no other examples in NZ of a similar instance.\n\nWhether one agrees with that judgement by NZCCP or not, it represents a different basis for removal than those traditionally used in academic publishing.\n\nThis raises important questions:\n\n• What threshold of harm justifies removal?\n\n• Who determines that threshold?\n\n• What protections exist against future misuse of such powers?\n\n• Could the same principle be applied to other controversial topics?****\n\n## **Whose Māori Voice?**\n\nOne aspect of this situation that I find particularly difficult is that the author herself is Māori. The public explanation for the article's removal is that retaining it could perpetuate harm to Māori. I do not dismiss that concern. Harm matters. At the same time, I find myself wondering what it means when a published article written by a Māori author is removed in the name of protecting Māori. Māori are not a monolith in the same way that none of us, identifying as members of a culture, consider that culture having a single voice. As with any community, there is diversity of thought, experience, political perspective, and scholarly opinion.\n\nIf our commitment is to elevating Māori voices, what do we do when Māori voices disagree with one another? Which voices are amplified, and which are excluded?\n\nThese are not comfortable questions, but they are important ones. A profession committed to genuine partnership must surely be able to engage with diversity and disagreement within Māori scholarship, rather than assuming there is a single Māori perspective that can be identified and protected.\n\nMy concern is not simply about the removal of one article. It is about whether our response to disagreement is engagement or exclusion.\n\nI worry that when a Māori author's contribution is removed from the scholarly record because it is considered inconsistent with organisational values, we risk sending a message that some Māori voices are welcome while others are not.\n\n## **Editorial Independence Matters**\n\nOne of the foundations of credible publishing is editorial independence. Editors are entrusted with making publication decisions through transparent processes. When governing bodies intervene in published content or editors request the input of governing bodies, questions inevitably arise about:\n\n• The independence of the journal\n\n• The role of editors\n\n• The separation between scholarship and governance\n\nThese questions deserve thoughtful discussion irrespective of anyone’s view of the article itself.\n\n## **The Challenge of Values-Based Publishing**\n\nProfessional organisations are values-driven. Values matter. Commitments to te Tiriti, equity, inclusion, and cultural safety matter, of course. At the same time, scholarship also depends on the ability to critically examine assumptions, including assumptions that are widely held. The challenge is not choosing between values and inquiry. The challenge is maintaining both.\n\n## **I am Concerned About the Precedent Being Set**\n\nThe most important question is not what happens to one article. The important question is what precedent is being established. Future councils may hold different views. Future controversies will arise. Do we have safe spaces for discussing these? The policies and processes we establish today will shape how our profession handles disagreement tomorrow.****\n\n## **A Final Reflection**\n\nA profession confident in its values should also be confident in its capacity for open inquiry. The issue before us is not simply whether an article was offensive, harmful, persuasive, or misguided. The issue is whether removal is the appropriate response to disagreement within a scholarly community. That conversation is worth having openly, respectfully, and without assuming that those who raise concerns about process are indifferent to harm or opposed to the values the profession seeks to uphold.\n\nThis article was originally published by Psychology at the Crossroads.",
  "title": "NZCCP Sets a Precedent of Censorship",
  "updatedAt": "2026-06-25T22:30:35.448Z"
}