Critic editor Joel MacManus speaks about copies of the student magazine being removed. (Video first published in May 2018)

The University of Otago Proctor has apologised to the editor of a student magazine after hundreds of copies were dumped by a staff member.

The tertiary institution and student magazine Critic made national and international headlines after copies of this week's issue, which featured a cartoon of a person menstruating on the cover, vanished from campus.

The university claims the removal of hundreds of copies of the magazine was a staff member's mistake, not censorship.

Critic Te Arohi editor Joel MacManus told Stuff he had received an unreserved apology from Proctor Dave Scott.

READ MORE:

* Destruction of period magazine 'censorship'

* Uni student makes official request for Studylink's hold playlist

* Pregnant teens, David Bains and Devast8 mingle on Hyde St

* Dunedin students vote against offensive costume ban

* Joel MacManus is the Critic - Te Arohi magazine editor reviving student media

"There are still a number of students upset with the censorship, and we have suggested to the university that a donation of sanitary products for [the Otago University Students' Association] to distribute free to students would result in a positive outcome for all involved."

A University of Otago spokeswoman confirmed a "positive meeting" had taken place on Wednesday afternoon, where the proctor apologised.

The magazines had been taken from stands around campus after a request to remove them from Dunedin Hospital and Dunedin Public Library.

This week's issue was not meant to be delivered off-campus due to its content, so the copies were collected on Monday.

HAMISH McNEILLY/STUFF Posters protesting the disappearance of a controversial student magazine from the University of Otago's campus were posted around the facility on Wednesday.

But 500 magazines on campus were taken to a skip, because staff in the proctor's office believed they copies should also be removed, the university spokeswoman said.

The proctor later said the incident was "regrettable".

In a statement on Wednesday, the spokeswoman said the university "made no decision to remove the editions of Critic" and it did not have a view on the content of the latest edition of the magazine.

The incident unfolded after "an incorrect assumption by staff independently in the proctor's office late on Monday", she said.

SUPPLIED The top of the cover of this week's Critic magazine.

"Regrettably, they removed approximately 500 copies and disposed of them."

The spokeswoman said no directions were given to the university's Campus Watch on the matter, as the institution had said earlier.

"This was a mistake and the actions that were taken here are regrettable."

'IT HAS BEEN INSANE'

MacManus said since the story broke his phone had been running hot with media calls and emails of support, including that of 17 former Critic editors.

An open letter to university chancellor Dr Royden Somerville expressed the former editors' "deep concern" at the university's removal and destruction of the magazine.

They said it was equivalent to censorship, "shocking" and called for the university to "apologise unreservedly".

"Universities ... should be environments where knowledge and thoughts are shared openly, where students and lecturers alike are free to express their minds and debate ideas.

"The decision by the university to confiscate without warning Critic's latest issue is directly contrary to these ideals."

They said Critic was a "bastion of freedom of expression on campus" where topics were discussed without university interference.

The editors, who include Stuff editor-in-chief Patrick Crewdson, said the magazine's latest edition was about a worthy, and often taboo, topic.

"While the illustrated cover featuring a person menstruating was a bold design decision, it was the editor's choice to make. If the university had objections to the magazine's cover or its content ... they should have taken the appropriate avenues available to any member of the public: first raise the issue with the editor, and if still unsatisfied, complain to the New Zealand Media Council, of which Critic is a member."

MacManus said the controversy resulted in online readership being "the highest we have ever had", he said.

"It has been insane."

Posters denouncing the university's move had also appeared around campus and protests were planned.

He said his team was planning the follow-up edition for later this week and hoped "to have something good".

On Tuesday he said the idea that the cover was degrading to women was a "backhanded attack on our magazine and the integrity of our staff".

OTAGO UNIVERSITY/SUPPLIED As university proctor, Dave Scott is responsible for monitoring and positively influencing student behaviour and safety on and off-campus.

MacManus said Critic Te Arohi stood by its content, which "touched on a number of very important issues about period poverty and trans issues, as well as breaking taboos about a bodily function that half the population experience".

The magazine decided to dedicate the issue to menstruation after a suggestion from the Otago Womens+ Club. The menstruation-related content was written by female or non-binary (gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍) contributors, and the cover artwork, which was of a non-gendered person, was by a woman, he said.

Illustrator and cover artist Saskia Rushton-Green said she never intended the image to be degrading. Her intention was to show "how people who bleed are pulling through with a smile and a thumbs up, even when they feel really gross".

"I certainly never intended this piece to be degrading to women/anyone who bleeds from their vagina. In fact, I hope some people find it empowering."

HAMISH McNEILLY/STUFF The student magazine disappeared from campus on Monday.

SHOULD IT BE CENSORED?

In a statement, the chief censor's office told RNZ the cover seemed offensive rather than legally objectionable.

"It doesn't hit our subject matter gateway criteria (sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence) and while the image does depict an explicit view of female genitalia, the image is not sexualised, nor is it particularly degrading or dehumanising.

"Generally speaking, cartoon or animated imagery does increase the psychological distance between the viewer and the publication.

"However, all films, videos and publications are classified using the same process, so the medium itself is not as important as the content and context."

Stuff has chosen not to republish the graphic image, which some may find offensive, but it can be viewed here, along with the rest of the magazine.