The International Affairs Committee was suspended in 2001 until further notice. It is discussed in US00/01-6. and to quote from that legislation:


CHARGE & RESPONSIBILITIES: The International Affairs Advisory Council shall be responsible for:

  • MEMBERSHIP: Membership of the International Affairs Advisory Council is fixed and consists of the: Chair, Foreign Studies Programs Committee; Director, Office of International Education and Exchange; Director, International Studies Program, or his/her designee; Chairs (or their designees) from the Asian Studies Committee, the Russian/East European Studies Committee, the Latin American Studies Committee, and the European Studies Committee; 3 additional teaching faculty members broadly representative of the campus; and 2 students, one of which shall be an international student.
  • REPORTING: The International Affairs Advisory Council shall report to the University Senate. At a minimum this report shall be in the form of an annual written report submitted by the Committee Chair to the Secretary of the University Senate no later than the final University Senate meeting in May. The committee shall also make additional written or oral reports to the Senate as necessary.

  • Relevant email correspondence

    From: Peter B Gilkey []

    Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 10:32 AM



    Subject: International Affairs Committee

    Dear Vice Provost Zhang:

    The "International Affairs Committee" is a standing University Committee which was established by the UO Senate. It was suspended in 2001. I am making a motion at the November meeting of the UO Senate to do some routine houskeeping and clean up things. I was wondering if you could check with someone in your office and let me know (a) if there is a sucessor committee and (b) why the committee was abolished. Or, I suppose, (c) who I SHOULD be contacting.

    That way I could make an appropriate explaination to the UO Senate at our November meeting since, at least in principle, abolishing a standing University committee requires Senate approval. I don't forsee any problem. I am just trying to present as complete and explaination to the senate as possible.

    Respectfully submitted

    Peter B Gilkey



    From: "Chunsheng Zhang"

    Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 09:45:02 -0700

    Dear Prof. Gilkey,

    Thank you for your email. Here is what I found so far:

    1. No one in International Affairs seems to know anything about the reasons why "International Affairs Committee" was abolished.

    2. According to my predecessor, Tom Mills, when he was appointed Associate Vice President, then Provost/Sr. VP John Moseley and VP Lorraine Davis formed the International Coordinating Council (ICC) to advise the three of them about UO international affairs. I am not certain whether ICC is a successor committee or whether ICC is a standing University Committee.

    I would like to have an opportunity to discuss this matter with Provost Brady and the past Chair of the ICC, Prof. Priscilla Southwell, regarding the status of ICC in relation to standing University Committees.

    I hope this brief reply is helpful for now. I hope we can all work together to further strengthen the university's infrastructure to support true internationalization at the UO.

    Best regards,


    Chunsheng Zhang, Ph.D. Vice Provost International Affairs & Outreach University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-5209 Tel (541) 346-5851 Fax (541) 346-1232

    Subject: RE: International Affairs Committee
    To: Chunsheng Zhang, Peter Gilkey
    Cc: Gordon Sayre, Gwen Steigelman
    From: Priscilla Southwell
    Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:52:31 -0700


    Here is an archive that might help to clarify the origins of the current International Coordinating Council (ICC) as established in 2002, and the uncertain status of the "International Affairs Committee." This is the July 18, 2001 "Final Report of the Committee on International Affairs Review", which recommended the creation of the ICC, among its other recommendations. My interpretation of this report is that this international affairs committee was set up as a temporary committee, following an unsuccessful internal search for vice-provost for international program, and that this committee's purpose and function were completed once this report was completed at the end of 2001.

    I also have a hard copy of a memo from John Moseley, dated 3/18/2002, to the members of the university committee, announcing the creation of the ICC, its members, and the charge to the Council. I will send a copy of this memo to Chunsheng and any others who would like a copy. The ICC is supposed to "work with the International Affairs Advisory Council" and the Committee on Committees to recommend how future committee structure should be formulated," but there is no mention of an "International Affairs Committee."

    I hope this helps a bit.

    Priscilla Southwell
    Chair, International Coordinating Committee
    Associate Dean, CAS

    The following information is taken from

    International Affairs: Directions for the Future

    Report begins
    : Final Report of the Committee on International Affairs Review July 18, 2001

    Prepared by:

    Committee Charge

    Based in part on a recommendation from the search committee that had conducted the unsuccessful internal search for a new vice provost for international programs, the provost assembled a committee of faculty and one student, chaired by the vice provost for academic affairs, and charged it to: “…undertake a thorough review of the structure and functions of both the office and the position with the aim of submitting before the end of the year a comprehensive analysis of UO international efforts and ideas for sustaining or re-structuring the vice provost’s office in support of them.”

    In order to conduct an effective review, the committee consulted broadly with the wider campus community. This document incorporates input from numerous discussions with representative groups and individuals concerning the directions the University of Oregon (UO) might take in developing international affairs. As such, it presents some of the key ideas that have emerged from efforts of other campus committees and councils, as well as individual faculty and student input and review.

    We provided for reviewers’ reflection and comment:

    The committee actively sought input from the campus community through a series of meetings with standing groups of faculty and students involved with international matters. In addition, we also solicited direct response and ideas from the entire campus community via e-mail or phone calls to any committee members.

    Mission Statement: International Affairs at the UO

    The University of Oregon enjoys an enduring tradition of significant and extensive international activity, ranging from its unusually successful set of study abroad programs to the extensive involvement of faculty in collaborative international research and instructional activities. The development of UO international affairs is essential to our aspirations to be a national university and to our aspirations to serve well and fully both regional and state interests and needs. While our national and international roles may be paramount, it is also critical to our regional and state responsibilities that we develop international affairs.

    The University of Oregon will achieve a clear and comprehensive position of West Coast and national leadership in the extent and quality of its international activities. In general, our goals must be:

    In conceptualizing the institutional structures that will best encourage and support the pursuit of these goals, the critical questions include:

    Summary: Functional Areas and Operating Principles

    The committee prepared an extensive list of ongoing activities—calling them functional areas—in the international arena. These include:

    Virtually all of the academic substance of UO international affairs arises from the expertise and initiative of the faculty located within existing academic units. These academic ventures in turn require administrative infrastructure and support and it is the development and shape of this administrative infrastructure that is under review. The general shape of administrative support is constrained by a number of general organizing principles:

    Committee Proposal and Current Directions for Reorganization

    We believe the proposal presented here supports and strengthens the university's efforts to enhance the breadth and scope of endeavors in international affairs. This proposal includes changes to the original proposal—the results of extensive input and concrete suggestions from faculty. It is important to acknowledge that there was considerable concern expressed that the original proposal, despite assertions of continued commitment to international affairs, diminished UO support to international matters (1) through a perceived reduction of the standing of the administrative position and the office responsible for international affairs, and (2) through the absence of any directly stated information regarding the funding for international affairs. This proposal includes a number of changes aimed at addressing the first concern—defining the appointment as vice provost and strengthening explicitly the role of the International Coordinating Council in particular. For the second concern, we are confident that the level of funding for international affairs will not be reduced as a result of these recommendations. Finally, the effectiveness of this proposal will be assessed systematically over the next two years and modified as determined by the experience and input from faculty and other stakeholders.

    Proposal Appoint a vice provost for international and academic affairs1 who has the responsibility to be the primary administrator for international affairs. This individual will provide vision, entrepreneurial direction, cultivate new international ventures, and put ideas into action. The vice provost will develop connection to and represent the interests of “international” faculty who are in numerous intellectual and professional fields or whose work is not necessarily international, per se, but whose activities have strong international links. The chair of the International Coordinating Council2 and the director of the Office of International Education and Exchange3 will report to this vice provost.

    Merge the operations of the Office of International Education and Exchange with some of the current operations of the Office of International Affairs. This moderately expanded Office of International Education and Exchange3 will be responsible for international student and scholar advising, overseas study and internship programs, the International Resource Center, staffing the president’s and provost’s international activities, assisting with international alumni activities, advising about international student recruiting, and handling other duties as assigned by the provost.

    Move relevant research centers, notably CAPS, under the vice president for research; consider creation of a more general research center in support of international research and development activities. It is expected that the vice president for research and vice provost for international and academic affairs will collaborate to facilitate the development of a structure to promote international research.

    Create an International Coordinating Council2 to oversee, monitor, and advise the provost regarding the international agenda at the UO. The charge of this council will be to formulate overarching international goals and to coordinate campus-wide implementation of these goals. The council’s memberships would include:

    Because the work of this council will be particularly critical during the period of evaluation and assessment of changes in international affairs, the council will meet quarterly with the provost over the next two years. As such, the committee believes the proposal reaffirms and strengthens UO commitment to international affairs and its integration within the larger academic and research mission of the UO. The UO has long established itself as an exemplary institution regarding matters in international affairs from students’, academic, and research perspectives. With this proposal the committee seeks to maintain and improve this well-earned reputation.