For years, Political Science Professor Joel Grossman dreamed of careers in sports, ranging from playing in the NBA to working in the front office of the New York Yankees. Instead, his career led him to a law degree and eventually to a specialization in research regarding federal courts. He considers teaching an important part of the research process and sat down to tell the News-Letter about his experiences and recent work.
News-Letter (N-L): Can you tell us about your background - where did you grow up, go to school?
Joel Grossman (JG): I was born in New York City, in Manhattan. I went to Queens College for undergrad studies and then received my Ph.D. at the University of Iowa in 1963. I then joined the faculty at the University of Wisconsin, Madison where I taught for 33 years before coming to Hopkins. I've been teaching at Hopkins for 13 years, so I'm now in my 47th year teaching.
N-L: That must have been a big transition, from being in one institution for so long and then coming to Hopkins.
JG: I actually came to Hopkins as a visiting professor and I wasn't intending to stay, but then they made me an offer. My daughters were settling on the East coast and my elderly mother was on this coast as well, so my wife and I decided it would be a good time to move. My daughters and grandchildren are nearby now, which is nice.
N-L: What made you choose political science as a field?
JG: I majored in political science in college, but I didn't have any aspirations to be an academic. My fantasy was to join to the NBA. But then I realized that that was purely fantasy, and I decided to be a sports writer. I actually was a sports writer part time in college, but there were few jobs then and I was draft bait. I was 1A, which means I was subject to the draft in the Korean War, so it was very hard to get a job. So, I got a job with the Prudential Insurance Company for a year, but that was so dull and boring that I quit and I went back to graduate school.
N-L: What was your backup career?
JG: A few years ago I said to myself- Gee-whiz, do I really want to end my life as a political scientist? If I can have one more job, I'd like to work for the New York Yankees in their front office. But I haven't quite written that letter to George Steinbrenner to make that happen yet. N-L: What has been one of your most memorable experiences teaching at Hopkins?
JG: I don't know if there is any specific experience, but I've had lots of great students, most of whom are in law school or have graduated from law school, and it's been a great pleasure teaching them. I also teach a course in conjunction with the University of Maryland law school as an adjunct professor, where we combine students from Hopkins and UMD Law, which I enjoy.
N-L: Has your experience teaching at Hopkins been different from your experiences at University of Wisconsin?
JG: Yes, they're night and day. There are some things that all universities have in common: We all teach students and there are certain patterns of academic life. But Hopkins is a very small institution, whereas Wisconsin is considerably larger.
Also, the faculty at Wisconsin were much more proactive and into faculty governance, where the faculty at Hopkins is very reticent to get involved.
The faculty here basically wants to be left alone, where in Wisconsin there was a lot of great research, but faculty members were engaged.
I was President of the Faculty, overseeing a Senate of 280 members, which was exactly the size of the Hopkins faculty when I came here.
I miss being part of faculty governance. Now I don't care so much for faculty politics, but still things are done here in secret; nothing is public.
At Hopkins, you don't know how money is allocated, you don't know faculty salaries ?- it's all decided by boards. Wisconsin was more open, even as a public institution, in their governance and I miss that. But life goes on, and I'm not sorry that I made the move.
N-L: How would you say teaching political science has changed how you approach the subject?
JG: I think there is great interdependence between research and teaching. I naturally focus a lot of what I teach on the research I do. If I get any backlash or feedback about my research in discussions that of course will find its way back into my research.
N-L: Any recommendations or advice to aspiring political science academics?
JG: The way you make it in this profession is through some kind of imaginative scholarship that makes a reputation. But I think in the long run, you need to recognize the interdependence between teaching and research, because I think I learn a lot from my teaching; it keeps me on my toes.
N-L: What are you working on now?
JG: I am beginning a new study on how we deal with disability of judges on the Supreme Court and other courts. There are provisions for dealing with disability in the lower federal courts, but they don't extend to the Supreme Court. I can tell you why, but it will take a long time. But there are constitutional reasons why this doesn't extend to the Supreme Court that have to do with the "Good Behavior Clause." It essentially says judges can keep their jobs for life, with good behavior, and that the only way to remove a judge is by impeaching them.
However, this requires the system to impeach a sick judge.
As a chair of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission I saw this firsthand. We had judges that snorted cocaine and then we had judges that were just sick, in the ordinary sense of the word, and the only way we could get rid of them was by disciplining them.
I always thought that this was wrong. There is a difference between being a racist and having a stroke. This problem will obviously get larger as judges live longer than they used to and encounter illnesses that they hadn't in the past. So that's what I'm working on.
