The latest edition of York Vision was removed from campus today by YUSU following student backlash over a back-page request for students to submit nude photographs to be "reviewed" by their editorial team. Issue 266 was removed after it transpired that the edition had not been sufficiently vetted before publication by the Union, a process that is normally undertaken before all campus publications go to print.
The request was printed on the back page of the edition which printed a week and a half later than it had been allotted to. The request featured a white page with the words "send nudes" in the format of Vision's masthead: bold white text in a red box. The page also featured an assurance that any pictures will be anonymised and censored when "appropriate".
Vision made a Google Form for students to submit the images to. Google's terms and conditions state that it does not allow for submission of "sexually explicit material".
Following the removal, the Sabbatical Officer team released a statement strongly condemning the paper which has only managed three printed editions in the last 12 months. The Sabbs implored Vision to hold themselves to higher journalistic standards and cited the potential for the requests to be a platform for revenge porn as the reason for the removal of the issue.
This is the latest in a long series of setbacks for Vision following multiple missed print deadlines and a decline in quality since its Guardian Student Journalism award triumph in 2015. The paper was criticised for an unpopular redesign in Issue 264, but has since returned to its trademark red-top style.
In response to today's events, York Vision released a statement: "To advertise a future lighthearted piece, we published what was supposed to be an eye-catching and controversial back page. While the submission point was updated to include guidelines and a policy to ensure welfare, we have since removed the submission point. We did not fully appreciate the welfare concerns and we will not be publishing the planned feature.
"The Vision editorial team would like to sincerely apologise for this error of judgement."