Browne, Kingsley 1950- (Kingsley R. Browne)

views updated

Browne, Kingsley 1950- (Kingsley R. Browne)

PERSONAL:

Born 1950. Education: George Washington University, B.A., 1975; University of Colorado, M.A., 1976; University of Denver, J.D., 1982.

ADDRESSES:

Office—Wayne State University, Law School, 471 West Palmer, Detroit, MI 48202. E-mail—kingsley.browne@wayne.edu.

CAREER:

Attorney, author, and educator. Supreme Court of Colorado, Denver, clerk for Justice Luis Rovira; U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, DC, clerk for Justice Byron White; Morrison and Foerster, San Francisco, CA, partner; Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, professor of law, 1989—.

WRITINGS:

Divided Labours: An Evolutionary View of Women at Work, Yale University Press (New Haven, CT), 1999.

Biology at Work: Rethinking Sexual Equality, Rutgers University Press (New Brunswick, NJ), 2002.

Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence that Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars, Sentinel (New York, NY), 2007.

SIDELIGHTS:

Attorney and educator Kingsley Browne attended George Washington University and the University of Colorado before graduating first in his class from the University of Denver law school. He then went on to clerk for Colorado Supreme Court Justice Luis Rovira and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White. Browne practiced law at the firm of Morrison and Foerster in San Francisco, where he was a partner until 1989 when he left to become a law professor at Wayne State University. His research interests focus primarily on employment law, employment discrimination, torts, and the relationship between biology and behavior and the law.

In Divided Labours: An Evolutionary View of Women at Work, Browne analyzes the differences between men and women in the workplace, addressing such issues as wage disparities and the "glass ceiling." Browne suggests that biological differences play more of a role than simple discrimination in the employment gender gap, weighing in on the side of social Darwinism. His theory is that men and women have different needs and goals, and that women fail to advance in their careers because they are naturally less aggressive than men and are instinctively drawn to other areas of their lives. In a review for Discover, Corey S. Powell wrote that Browne "proposes that rather than worry about a ‘glass ceiling,’ women should celebrate their freedom to measure success in terms other than corporate advancement." Edward Skidelsky, reviewing the book for the New Statesman, stated that "it is a chastened Darwinism that now pokes its head back into social and political conversation. Its target is no longer the macrocosm of human society, but the microcosm of human psychology. It claims that evolution has shaped not only our bodies, but also our souls." Booklist reviewer Mary Carroll observed that "Browne's evolutionary explanations for personality and behaviors rely heavily on economic concepts." Skidelsky observed that "Browne's portrait of women as nurturing and altruistic may very well be true as far as nature is concerned."

Biology at Work: Rethinking Sexual Equality returns to the subject of equality between men and women in the workplace, and reiterates the author's belief that biological differences are responsible for the gap in wages and success. Signs contributor Lisa H. Weasel wrote that "what is new is Browne's … attempt to draw sociobiology into the workplace, to account for such disparities as pay inequity and sexual harassment." In the Women's Review of Books, Banu Subramaniam commented that Browne "acknowledges the social and political gains made by women in Western societies but points to the striking disparities that still remain. While feminists see these disparities as evidence of the resilience and deep-rootedness of patriarchy, he finds sexual dimorphism and a dual human nature—‘male nature’ and ‘female nature.’"

In Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence that Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars, Browne offers up his argument as to why he feels women are not fit to serve in the armed forces performing combat duty. He insists over the course of the book that he is not basing his assessment on any personal belief, but rather on scientific evidence that proves women are unable to handle the situation. The book includes a number of studies that back up Browne's claim, as well as his own statements regarding the fact that women, as a rule, are both stronger and less strong on a physical scale than most men. This last point Browne feels is one that cannot be ignored, even by die-hard feminists. Browne lists a number of other physical attributes that make men fit for combat and women fit to stay out of battle, including superior physical coordination, awareness of their surroundings, and an ability to deal with prolonged pain. A contributor for Kirkus Reviews pointed out the limited argument that Browne presents, stating that "readers genuinely interested in exploring both sides of the controversy of women as soldiers will quickly realize they're getting only one here." A reviewer for Publishers Weekly made a similar point, stating that "since Browne makes no secret of his opinion and is a lawyer, readers may suspect they are hearing only one side of the case."