What led to the PR debacle around Yale-NUS' 'operational lapse'?

The National University of Singapore (NUS) has revealed that it will be taking proactive steps to distribute excess books, following backlash over how books from the former Yale-NUS College Library were redistributed. This came after photos showing piles of books in plastic bags outside the Yale-NUS College Library on 20 May circulated among students and alumni, raising concerns over how the materials were handled.

The incident sparked a petition on Change.org addressed to NUS leadership, urging the university to prioritise the retrieval of books marked for disposal and to “prevent future instances of similar wastage.”

Alumni called for transparency on the number and value of discarded books, how many were recovered, whether alternative disposal methods were considered, who was consulted, and what protocols safeguard academic resources.

Don't miss: Will the Chocolate Finance's CEO note post withdrawal blunder rebuild trust?

“We express deep concern over the disposal of many academic materials in good condition,” the petition read, questioning NUS’s sustainability commitment and stewardship of valuable texts.

Following the concerns, Natalie Pang, associate professor and librarian at NUS said in a statement that while the majority of books from the Yale-NUS Library were successfully rehomed within NUS Libraries, excess titles were initially offered only to faculty members. Students were not informed or included in the initial distribution.

"We understand later that many students are interested in having these books and we would have usually acceded to their requests. We did not do so on this occasion and we apologise for the operational lapse," she said.

Pang added that NUS routinely rehomes excess library books by redistributing them across other libraries or giving them away to faculty, and in some cases, students. Books not taken up are typically sent for recycling, in line with standard practice.

“We are reviewing our process and will take proactive steps to distribute excess books to the NUS community and the wider public so that they can benefit as many people as possible,” Pang said.

Per The Straits Times, the initial plan to recycle all 9,000 books has been paused. Instead, 8,500 will be donated to book fairs, while 500 have already been discarded.

According to media intelligence firm CARMA, conversations about NUS and Yale-NUS were 20.9% positive and 13.4% negative. However, sentiment shifted sharply in the aftermath, with positive mentions dropping to 17% and negative sentiment spiking to 48.2%, driven by criticism from alumni, students, and politicians such as Jamus Lim, who argued the books should have been donated.

Since the incident, words such as "concerns" and "losing" have been associated with NUS and Yale-NUS, according to CARMA. 

This is a stark contrast to its word cloud before the incident, which included words such as "sustainable", "excellence" and "good". 

When back-end ops go front page

The incident at NUS spotlights the increasing risk that operational decisions pose to brand reputation. Meilin Wong, CEO and partner at Milk & Honey PR, SEA, stated that no operational decision is truly outside the communications remit anymore.

If a decision affects people, ethics, budgets, or can be seen in a headline, then it’s a communications issue too.

In her experience in the industry, Wong noted that reputation hits usually come from actions, not words, often due to overlooking broader impacts as communication gets involved too late.

Wong said the NUS episode highlights a common gap in internal processes, where decisions are made in silos and communications only gets called in to mop up the fallout. “These things tend to fall through the cracks when communication isn’t brought in early enough,” she added.

In fact, reputational damage often stems not from intent, but timing and visibility, according to Manisha Seewal, group president at Redhill.

“While the disposal of books may have seemed like an operational matter, decisions involving institutional memory or public assets tend to carry emotional weight. Communications professionals should be looped in much earlier, not just when a response is needed, but when sensitive actions are being planned,” she said.

The onus is on both sides: operations teams need to feel safe flagging decisions that might cause concern, and PR teams must step up as internal advisors, not just external fixers, she added.

“A good communications team brings the outside perspective into the room, helping organisations make decisions that are not only defensible, but also meaningful to the people they serve,” Seewal said. 

Not just about optics

Beyond damage control, Wong said the NUS case underscores a deeper shift in how institutions are expected to act, not just to explain. “When communications is brought in early during the planning stage, it results in more informed decisions, better preparedness, and stronger outcomes,” she said.

Seewal agreed, noting that in areas such as sustainability, where public expectations often outpace internal practices, early involvement of communications teams can prevent reputational blind spots.

Too often, communications is still seen as a support function rather than a strategic advisor.

For both PR professionals, the Yale-NUS incident also points to the evolving scope of the comms role, from shaping narratives to guiding internal judgment.

"The job is no longer just about crafting the right words. It’s about understanding how actions will be interpreted, identifying concerns before they escalate, and helping leaders see the possible impact from multiple viewpoints," said Seewal. 

Handling backlash when the damage is done

So what should communications teams do when a seemingly routine operational move spills into public backlash?

“Listen before speaking,” said Seewal. “Often, the frustration isn’t just about the act itself but about how it reflects on the institution’s values or how it affects those with an emotional connection to the issue.”

Both she and Wong stressed the need for clear, empathetic communication, and actual corrective steps. “Be human. Be direct. Say sorry without the corporate jargon. And most importantly, back it up with action,” said Wong.

Related articles: 
From boardroom to courtroom: Does comms have a say in the CDL family feud?  
How your PR initiative can lead to growth in actual dollars and cents   
How can SingPost win back investor trust post high profile terminations?