Critic menstruation magazine ‘offensive’
Campus Watch staff involved in the removal of a controversial university magazine described its menstruationthemed cover as ‘‘totally offensive’’.
Hundreds of copies of Critic Te Arohi were removed from the University of Otago’s Dunedin campus after a cartoon of a person menstruating was published on a May cover.
The incident prompted calls of censorship, generated headlines across New Zealand, and about 150 protesters voiced their displeasure over the situation.
The tertiary institution later downplayed it as a mistake by a Campus Watch staff member.
Internal emails about the controversy, released to The Press under the Official Information Act, include letters of support for the removal of the magazine, and messages from detractors who said it amounted to censorship.
‘‘I was absolutely disgusted that this magazine can ‘get away’ with such ‘trash and filth’ . . . I find this magazine totally offensive,’’ an unnamed Campus Watch staff member wrote in one email.
The magazine’s focus on drinking and drugs undermined ‘‘the values we are trying to protect’’, and said his team ‘‘felt strongly enough that we need to do something about it’’.
He applauded the university’s administration for removing the magazines and confirmed Campus Watch staff had removed ‘‘hundreds of copies’’.
Another member wrote that the cover was ‘‘offensive and inappropriate’’.
‘‘It supposedly relates to a topic of menstruation inside the magazine, although I have not bothered to read it.’’
Proctor Dave Scott, who also came under fire this year for removing bongs from a student flat, replied to the emails saying he was ‘‘disappointed by the Critic this year’’.
He shared their concerns about young people viewing the magazine.
An Otago University spokeswoman said the individual views of staff did not represent the university’s viewpoint. The university did not have an official viewpoint on the content nor the cover of that issue of Critic, she said.
Claims that Campus Watch was directed to remove copies of the magazine from campus were ‘‘incorrect’’.
It came from a passing reference the proctor made to a Campus Watch member about the issue being withdrawn from library and hospital areas.
That led to an ‘‘erroneous assumption’’ that the university was responsible for withdrawing copies on campus, and that the move was authorised, she said.