The Free Speech Union has written to the Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists seeking an explanation for its decision to remove a previously peer-reviewed article from publication. The organisation argues the move departs from internationally recognised standards for academic retractions and raises broader questions about freedom of expression within professional institutions.
eLocal Report: Based on correspondence from the **Free Speech Union**, together with publicly available information relating to the Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists.
Supporting document: Free Speech Union letter to the Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists (PDF)
Free Speech Union Challenges Journal Decision
The Free Speech Union (FSU), together with its Professional Membership Council for Healthcare and the Inter-University Council on Academic Freedom, has formally written to the Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists (JNZCCP), questioning its decision to remove a previously published peer-reviewed article by Dr A. Mitchell.
The letter describes the removal as "an extraordinary act of censorship" and argues that the article did not meet internationally recognised criteria for retraction, such as research fraud, plagiarism or significant factual error.
Questions Over Editorial Independence
According to the FSU, the journal stated that continuing to host the article was no longer consistent with the values of the College and its commitment to honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi, particularly due to concerns the article could perpetuate harm to Māori.
The FSU argues that journals exist to examine and debate ideas through peer review rather than withdraw published work because it conflicts with institutional values. The organisation contends that academic disagreement should ordinarily be addressed through further research and debate rather than removal of published material.
Concerns About Academic Freedom
The letter also outlines the sequence of events leading to the article's removal and argues that Dr Mitchell was informed only after the decision had already been made, with no opportunity to respond beforehand. It further notes that the original webpage now returns a 404 Page Not Found error rather than retaining the article with an explanatory retraction notice.
The FSU says this approach differs from international publication ethics guidelines, which generally distinguish between retractions based on research integrity and editorial disagreement.
Professional Standards Raised
The correspondence also cites the New Zealand Psychologists Board's scope of practice and the Code of Ethics for Psychologists Working in Aotearoa/New Zealand, arguing that psychologists are expected to engage in scientific inquiry, critical evaluation and evidence-based professional practice.
The FSU argues these standards support open examination of contested ideas within the profession and questions whether the College's decision is consistent with those obligations.
Questions Put To The College
The letter concludes by asking the College to explain:
- precisely how Dr Mitchell's article breached the College's values;
- how the article may have caused harm to Māori;
- what steps are being taken to protect Dr Mitchell's right to freedom of expression; and
- how the editorial decision can be reconciled with psychologists' professional and ethical obligations.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
This story extends beyond a single academic journal.
Whether readers agree with the Free Speech Union's position or the College's decision, the issues raised touch on wider questions about how New Zealand's professional institutions balance academic freedom, freedom of expression and their responsibilities to members and the communities they serve.
The case also raises broader questions about editorial independence. When a peer-reviewed article is removed after publication for reasons other than research misconduct or factual error, it prompts discussion about where the line should be drawn between protecting institutional values and preserving open scholarly debate.
For New Zealand, these questions reach beyond psychology. Universities, professional colleges, scientific journals and public institutions all rely on confidence that ideas can be challenged through evidence, discussion and further research. How those debates are managed today may help shape the culture of inquiry and intellectual freedom that future generations inherit.
Source
Source Document: Letter from the Free Speech Union (New Zealand), Professional Membership Council for Healthcare and the Inter-University Council on Academic Freedom to the Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists Editorial Board, dated 29 June 2026.
Independent reporting. Original context. Credited sources.