A peer-reviewed paper by a Māori clinical psychologist has been removed from her profession's journal on the grounds that keeping it accessible could harm Māori. It was not retracted for error, fraud or misconduct, which are ordinarily the only reasons for such an action.
The Free Speech Union is calling on the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists to explain the decision.
The paper was submitted in 2024, peer reviewed, and published in the Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists in 2025. According to the explanation given to members, the College's governing Council determined that keeping the article available was inconsistent with the College's values. The involvement of the College's governing body in removing a published paper raises questions about the journal's editorial independence.
An email explaining NZCCP’s removal of the article, sent to their mailing list.
"A scholarly journal is meant to be a place where ideas are tested, not a channel for value signalling," said Free Speech Union Stakeholder Relationships Manager Stephanie Martin. "There is a long-standing difference between disagreeing with a published paper and removing it. Disagreement is answered with rebuttals, responses and debate. Removal tells every clinician reading the journal that some questions, and topics, are now closed to discussion."
"A profession committed to genuine partnership should be able to tolerate disagreement among Māori scholars, rather than treat a single position as a unanimous Māori view," said Martin. "When a published Māori author is removed from the record to protect Māori, it is fair to ask whose voices are being amplified and whose are being excluded."
The case appears to be without precedent in New Zealand. A former editor of the journal has written publicly that she could find no comparable example of a paper being removed on these grounds rather than for misconduct.
The implications reach well beyond a single article. Many clinical psychologists are required to belong to a professional body such as the College in order to be approved for certain work, so the College's judgements about acceptable views carry unusual weight in that members may not agree with them, but may not feel able to cease membership without losing their livelihoods.
Ironically, this demonstrates the very issues with regulatory overreach that the article itself sought to highlight,” said Martin.
"A profession confident in its values can withstand disagreement," said Martin. "We are asking the College to demonstrate that confidence, and to hold the space for discussion rather than remove it from view."
Notes
The original journal article can be found at this link. It was published on 11th August 2025 and subsequently removed:
https://zenodo.org/records/16743836
A Substack article, written by Clinical Psychologist Dr Kumari Valentine, argues that this amounted to an act of censorship:
https://psychologyatthecrossroads.substack.com/p/nzccp-sets-a-precedent-of-censorship
❧
Human beings cannot flourish unless they are free! We protect, expand, and fight for New Zealanders’ rights to freedom of speech, conscience, and intellectual inquiry. We envision a flourishing New Zealand civil society that values and protects vigorous debate, dissenting ideas, and freedom of speech as cultural cornerstones.