Skip to content
Theme

January 27, 2026: Proposed new policy E130

Comment period runs January 27 through February 26. Please submit comments through the online form by February 26.

New proposed Policy E130 "Foreign Talent Recruitment Programs" was drafted to comply with federal regulations and is based on President Stokes’s Memorandum dated July 23, 2024 regarding compliance with all applicable laws and regulations pertaining to Foreign Talent Recruitment Programs.

Associated web page updates

Submit a comment

You can submit a comment using our web-based form until this comment period closes February 26.

Submit a comment now

Public comments

Collaboration risks, mandatory snitching, due process

Submitted January 28 by Anonymous
view comment
I support the University’s need to comply with the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. However, as currently drafted, Policy E130 lacks alignment with Draft Policy E50 (Export Control) regarding international collaboration and introduces internal enforcement mechanisms that exceed federal mandates. Please consider revisions to the following sections to protect faculty from inadvertent federal liability and to preserve fundamental due process:


  1. Clarify Scope & Align with Policy E50: Separate "Recruitment" from "Restricted Party Collaboration"
    The Issue: Procedures Section 1, Bullet 5 requires covered individuals to "refrain from engaging with parties on U.S. government restricted entity lists."
    Critique:

    • Dangerous Ambiguity: The vague phrase "engaging with" is buried in a Recruitment policy. Faculty will interpret this as "do not join these entities." They will not understand that "Restricted Entities" (governed by Policy E50) trigger strict liability for collaboration (e.g., emailing data, exchanging unpublished information while co-authoring a manuscript).

    • Regulatory Confusion: Policy E50 (Export Control) already explicitly governs "collaborations with foreign individuals" and warns of "fines, prison time, and debarment." Policy E130 undermines E50 by presenting this as a mere "recruitment" issue rather than a criminal one.


    Proposed Revision: Replace Bullet 5 with the following explicit warning and cross-reference to E50:
    "Refrain from unauthorized collaboration with, data sharing with, or hosting of parties on U.S. government restricted entity lists. WARNING: Interactions with these entities are legally distinct from Recruitment Programs and are governed by Policy E50 (Export Control). Unlike recruitment bans, unauthorized data sharing with Restricted Entities carries criminal liability (including potential imprisonment), regardless of whether a formal recruitment agreement exists."

  2. Refine Definitions: "Foreign Entity of Concern" vs. "Restricted Entity"
    The Issue: The policy defines "Foreign Entity of Concern" (the CHIPS Act definition) but uses the phrase "U.S. government restricted entity lists" in the Procedures.
    Critique: These are two different lists with different legal consequences.

    • "Foreign Entity of Concern" (CHIPS Act) = Funding Ban.

    • "Restricted Entity" (Commerce List) = Criminal Export Violation (governed by Policy E50).


    Using them interchangeably confuses the "Funding Risk" (losing a grant) with the "Legal Risk" (violating federal law).
    Proposed Revision: Add a specific definition for "Restricted Entity Lists" (citing the Consolidated Screening List) and explicitly distinguish it from "Foreign Entity of Concern."

  3. Remove the "Snitch Clause" (Mandatory Reporting of Colleagues)
    The Issue: Under Section 1 (Violations), the policy states: "Any individual who suspects a violation of this Policy must report the suspected violation... Individuals who violate this Policy may be subject to... disciplinary action."
    Critique: Federal regulations require the institution to have a process for handling allegations; they do not require UNM to deputize every faculty member as a security compliance officer against their peers. By making reporting mandatory ("must"), this policy creates a distinct liability for bystanders. A faculty member could be disciplined solely for failing to report a colleague’s complex international collaboration that they essentially "should have known" was problematic.
    Proposed Revision: Change the language from a mandate to a resource.

    • Current: "Any individual who suspects a violation... must report..."

    • Proposed: "Individuals who suspect a violation are encouraged to contact the ORIC or HSC Office of Research for guidance..."



  4. Mandate Due Process—Do Not Make It Optional
    The Issue: Under Section 1 (Violations), the policy states: "The investigation procedures in FHB C07: Faculty Disciplinary Policy may be used for guidance."
    Critique: This language is dangerously vague. FHB C07 is the bedrock of faculty due process and tenure protection. By using the phrase "may be used for guidance," this policy effectively allows the Industrial Security Department (ISD) to invent ad-hoc investigation procedures that bypass established faculty rights. While federal agencies have their own investigation powers, internal UNM disciplinary actions must strictly adhere to the Faculty Handbook.
    Proposed Revision: Change "may" to "shall."

    • Current: "...may be used for guidance."

    • Proposed: "...shall be followed."