A New Zealand journal deleted a paper for potential harm to Māori months after publishing it

August 20, 2026 - 03:16

When Arna Mitchell submitted her article critiquing a proposal for different standards of practice for Māori and non-Māori clients in clinical psychology, she thought it would be too controversial to see the light of day. She was wrong, at least at first. The paper was accepted and published in the New Zealand Journal of Psychology in early 2024. Now, months later, the journal has quietly deleted it from its archive, citing potential harm to Māori communities.

Mitchell, a clinical psychologist, argued that the proposal to create separate ethical guidelines for Māori clients was based on shaky evidence and could lead to lower quality care. She said the idea, which came from a working group within the profession, risked stereotyping Māori as a single group and ignored individual differences. The journal initially saw value in the debate, but after a formal complaint from the New Zealand Psychological Society, the editors reversed course.

The deletion has sparked a fresh argument about academic freedom versus cultural safety. Mitchell says she was never given a chance to respond to the complaint or revise her work. The journal's editor, in a brief statement, said the decision was made after careful consideration of the potential for the article to cause harm, not because the content was factually wrong. Mitchell disagrees, calling the move a blow to open inquiry. The paper is still available on her personal website, but its removal from the official record raises uncomfortable questions about who gets to decide what is acceptable to say in a field that is still grappling with its colonial past.