Guidance for Advocates

On this Page:

Adopted by the Faculty Personnel Committee June 2008; revised May 2016; revised June 2019

The Purpose of the “Guidelines for Advocates” information

  • To state how the Faculty Personal Committee uses the advocate’s statement so that advocates can write in a way that most successfully expresses the merits of the candidacy
  • To describe the advocacy process, aimed especially at first-time advocates, along with suggestions gathered from experienced advocates.

Who Can Serve as Advocate

As stated in “The Procedures of the Faculty Personnel Committee,” “The Personnel Committee bases its deliberations on a personnel file containing [among other things] a statement from a faculty advocate of the candidate’s choice who has read the file. The faculty advocate is generally a senior faculty member who understands the candidate’s work and record.” The advocate must be outside a candidate’s department, but need not be outside the division. A colleague should not agree to be a candidate’s advocate if they know they will be serving on FPC during the terms the candidate’s file will be under review. If an advocate has been working with a candidate in their fifth year (or its equivalent) and that advocate is subsequently elected to FPC, the candidate may choose to continue to work with that advocate with the understanding that the advocate must recuse themselves from the candidate’s case.

How the FPC Uses the Advocate’s Statement

The advocate’s letter represents a strong argument, based on the material in the tenure or promotion file, in support of the candidate from the point of view of a person of long experience at K. In addition to the material in the file, advocates have sometimes conducted interviews with members of the candidate’s department. The advocate’s letter can identify departmental dynamics which may not be explicitly discussed in either the candidate’s or the department chair’s letters. In this and other ways, the advocate’s letter occasionally will provide information or perspectives not otherwise found in the file. The Committee receives this information with the knowledge and expectation that it is provided in the role of advocacy.

Duties of the Advocate

Interactions between advocate and candidate

Informed by considerable experience at the College and by substantive knowledge of FPC review procedures, the advocate contributes an important perspective on how the candidate may craft their personal statement, in both style and content. After reading all materials that will be submitted for the file, the advocate is in a position to guide the candidate in shaping the file as a coherent narrative of their career at K.

Interactions between advocates and FPC

At the very least, the advocate interacts with the Committee through a letter of support for the candidacy, based on all the information in the file (with the exception of the external reviewers’ statements), interviews with the candidate, department chair, classroom visits, etc.

The Committee may seek clarification or additional information concerning the candidacy. Once the candidate has submitted their materials at the start of the review process, there is never direct communication between the Committee and the candidate. Rather, these requests always pass through the advocate. The process typically involves providing the advocate with a list of questions or a request for additional materials. The advocate consults with the candidate, obtains the candidate’s response to the Committee’s questions and requests, and passes it on to the Committee either through email or an in-person meeting. A summary or copy of any communication will be placed in the candidate’s file.

Advocates are expected to know and follow all guiding documents relevant to reviews. In exceptional cases, unresolved disagreements between the advocate and FPC regarding the interpretation of guiding documents will be referred to the FEC Chair and Vice-Chair for resolution. When there are signs that the advocate is not appropriately representing the candidate or there are signs of other inappropriate behavior on the part of the advocate—such as not following guidelines, breaching confidentiality, or refusing to convey FPC communications or requests to the candidate—the situation may be referred to the FEC Chair and Vice-Chair for review and may result in the FEC Chair and Vice-Chair requiring the candidate to choose a new advocate.

Further interactions

If requested, FPC will provide no more than a one page overarching summary of the external review letters to the tenure or promotion advocate, before the advocate letter is due, and will provide it to the tenure or promotion candidate after the process has been completed (i.e., the final action by the Board). In order to protect the confidentiality of the external reviewers (a condition under which they are hired), no direct quotes will be used in the summaries. Also, since external reviewers are not explicitly asked to provide for a recommendation for or against tenure or promotion, no wording to that effect will be used in the summaries. FPC does not feel bound to “tally” external reviewer opinions when making a final recommendation on tenure or promotion to the Provost.

“Better Practices”

Given that advocates bring their own unique departmental and institutional experiences to the review process, it may be useful to think of the following advice as characterizing “better” rather than “best” practices. Though the experienced advocates below articulate differences in tone, they agree on some fundamental points:

  • The advocacy process involves extensive conversations with candidates and a comprehensive review of their file in order to establish an understanding of major contributions and areas of concern in teaching, advising and mentoring, professional engagement, and service.
  • In this process, advocates pay particular attention to previous review letters to determine how best to mentor candidates in their personal statement and file preparation and to develop their own advocate statement. Advocates may advise candidates on how to frame elements of the personal statement, including how the candidate’s work in teaching, advising and mentoring, professional engagement, and service might promote an inclusive learning environment on campus.
  • In their statements, advocates seek to frame a persuasive narrative of candidate’s strengths and weakness rather than simply repeat information from the file. They do so by asserting contributions and overlooked strengths in striking ways, by addressing areas of concern in a positive light, and, often, by providing a departmental, disciplinary, and/or institutional context not always possible or advisable for candidates themselves. Advocates are encouraged to understand and discuss in their letter how the candidate’s work in teaching, advising and mentoring, professional engagement, and service might promote an inclusive learning environment on campus. [Note: While advocates might vary in how they advise candidates to address concerns emerging in file documents, it is important to underscore that the Personnel Committee expects candidates to respond directly to specific weaknesses and/or expectations concerning the areas of review raised in previous assessments.
  • Advocates should review sections FPC pages on Guidance for Candidates and Guidance for Department Chairs, along with specific documents on “Teaching Effectiveness at Kalamazoo College” and “Defining Professional Engagement at Kalamazoo College” under Guiding Principles when preparing for their role.

The following advice is distilled from the comments of some of the most experienced advocates at the College.

  1. I try to have a conversation with the person, especially if I don’t know them well, before I read their file; it tends to be general rather than specific; I am especially interested in whether there are any personality conflicts or that sort of thing that might underlie the person’s tenure situation.
  2. I then talk informally with any members of the candidate’s department or division that I am friendly with, trying to get a sense of the person’s situation in the context of the personalities and division of labor in the department. Again, I am looking in part for issues that might be either helpful or harmful [and] that might not “surface” in paper documents. I have found these conversations to be sometimes quite frank and useful.
  3. I examine all the tenure file documents at once when they are assembled to get a complete picture of the situation. I then have a long conversation with the candidate ranging over the three “legs” of the tenure material: teaching, scholarship and service. I focus particularly on areas that I feel might be weak, so I can make the best possible case for the person’s overall worthiness.
  4. I then write my own letter, in which I try not to repeat the material from the rest of the file: rather I try to focus on whatever strengths I see; I then approach areas that I think might be perceived as weak and put as positive a face on those, especially, as I can.
  5. Be prepared to work very hard. There is no such thing as an open and shut case. The candidate has entrusted the advocate with his or her personal and professional future. This is a grave responsibility, and one of the most important at the College.
  6. Be thorough. The advocate’s task is to make the best possible case for the candidate. Thus the advocate should ensure that the candidate does indeed have an ironclad case, and the best way to do so is by assuming the worst and trying to anticipate any problems that could undermine the candidate’s case. Thus, for example, it is critically important that the tenure advocate read candidate course evaluations with the utmost care, going out of the way to look for potential red flags.
  7. Study not only the current tenure file but also the candidate’s earlier reviews.
  8. Start working with the candidate early. Impress upon the candidate the importance of preparing an early draft of the personal statement, and review it carefully for both style and substance.
  9. After identifying any possible points of weakness, get the candidate to talk openly with you about those weaknesses. Then remember that it is your job to discuss those weaknesses in your own report. The candidate should be at once convincing, emollient, and diplomatic. The advocate should, where necessary, be at once defensive and aggressive in advancing the candidate’s cause.
  10. Look not only for potential weaknesses but for unexpected strengths. Academics are often not very good at tooting their own horns. It is the advocate’s job to do so.
  11. I generally organize my reports by emphasizing the candidate’s contributions in the traditional areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. In the report I try to highlight the candidate’s strengths (e.g., by including bulleted quotes from impressive course evaluations) and vigorously address perceived or actual weaknesses. Of course, if there is anything that is really unusual or interesting, I highlight such matters early on. Finally, of course, I try to come up with an arresting or compelling introduction, remembering that the Personnel Committee reads lots of reports, many of them formulaic or soporific. The advocate’s report cannot afford to be either of these things.