Otago’s clumsy act of censorship

Rather than prompting original thought and informed debate, Otago University has ... treated its 18,000 students like children who need protecting.

It is well known that universities have a mandated role in the Education Act to be the critic and conscience of society. It could be argued that New Zealand universities do not embrace this role as often as they should. We hear too rarely from academics and researchers about areas of interest that intercept with urgent social topics. Talk to some in private and they will say that they are either too busy or wary of putting their heads above the parapet.

Could it also be said that student magazines have a similar role? They should criticise, scold, shock and pontificate. New Zealand’s student magazines do not just have a history of testing taste limits, they may even have a duty to do so.

When the editor of Otago University magazine Critic – Te Arohi, Joel Macmanus, was casting about for a cover image to go with a special issue on menstruation, he wanted a cover that would get people’s attention. During an interview with RNZ, he described the cover as ‘‘objectionable’’ and ‘‘undeniably challenging’’. But he believed that people on a university campus could handle it.

Mainstream media outlets have refused to reproduce the cover illustration by Saskia Rushton-green depicting a gender-neutral person menstruating. Rushton-green has said she hoped the image would be seen as empowering rather than degrading.

Trouble started when the magazine went into stands off campus. Both Dunedin Hospital and Dunedin Public Library complained about the cover, which led to the university’s proctor, Dave Scott, directing his Campus Watch team to also remove all copies from campus.

The university’s website describes Campus Watch as a blue-and-gold uniform-wearing ‘‘safety patrol’’ who have student wellbeing in mind. Acting as book-burners from Fahrenheit 451 would seem to be outside their job description.

Ironically, the very same magazine had been praised by Otago’s vice-chancellor, Harlene Hayne, who reportedly emailed Macmanus to say that ‘‘this week’s issue of Critic is particularly good’’.

Was this clumsy exercise in censorship a cockup or was it a conspiracy? More the former, it seems. Macmanus could not get a straight answer out of Campus Watch until the mainstream media, including Stuff, started asking about the case of the missing magazines. The university said it did not direct Campus Watch to censor Critic and that it had no issue with its contents before adding that some people thought the cover was degrading to women. Even those who agree with that aesthetic judgment must recognise the university has handled this incident incredibly poorly. Why did the proctor or Campus Watch representatives not approach Critic’s editor? It first seems patronising and high-handed to simply remove the magazines. If some on campus found the cover image degrading, there are proper channels to follow. The chief censor’s office said on first viewing the cover seemed merely offensive, not legally objectionable.

No-one has the right to not be offended. If this maxim applies anywhere, it applies on campus, which should be a hotbed of confronting ideas and images. But rather than prompting original thought and informed debate, Otago University has, through Campus Watch, treated its 18,000 students like children who need protecting.