Two law professors present this argument and conclude that the courts and civil libertarians who invoke the outmoded 1960’s conception of rights are not addressing contemporary realities. The law developed by the United States Supreme Court greatly strengthened individual protections in the area of criminal procedure. The courts have been reluctant to roll back these rights thus far, even at the behest of embattled communities. The essays responding to the argument by the law professors argue that the changes in criminal procedure made in the 1960’s were driven by longstanding fears about the abuse of government power and not by concerns about racism. Other critics question the thought that racism has diminished so much that the courts can simply let normal democratic processes monitor the police. Others believe that crime-ridden communities are not freely choosing to give the police greater discretion; instead, they are acting from desperation. The law professors respond the 1960’s conception of rights has outlived its utility and that residents of the inner city are qualified to determine whether actions such as inner-city curfews, gang-loitering laws, and building searches unreasonably subordinate liberty to order. Reference notes