What is "de jour segregation"?

Answer 1

I think this is natural segregation that people do without thinking. Like marrying someone of your own race or being friends with people who are your own race.

NOPE- it's segregation imposed by law. What I said before is de facto segregation.

Answer 2

The distinction you have somewhat inaccurately asked about is between "de jure" and "de facto" segregation.

Segregation (or any other policy) is "de jure" when it is a direct consequence of the law, even if it is not actually carried out in effect. (It has absolutely nothing to do with the "state's intentions" as some of the better respondants wrongly state.) A policy is "de facto" when it exists as a fact, particularly when it exists despite the law being silent on the point or being actually contrary to what is happening in fact.

The easiest way to understand the difference between the two is usually in respect to governments. Currently, a coup in Fiji has installed an army general into power. Fiji's Constitution forbids such things. The former Prime Minister is the "de jure" leader of the country, because he is the one the law says should be in charge. However, the army general is the "de facto" leader, because -- notwithstanding what the law says -- his armed followers have actual control of the country.

Similarly, "de facto" segregation would be that segregation that persists in real life, notwithstanding that it may not be legally required or may even be legally banned. "De jure" segregation would be segregation that is actually spelled out in the law's requirements, even if segregation does not actually occur in real life.

Answer 3

segregation of the day. du jour is French for of the day.

Answer 4

they dont want you to know....
jour=day
de jour segregation=the day's segregation or segregation of the day

Answer 5

that would translate to segregation of the day ?
currently Muslims ?

Answer 6

refers to intentional actions by the state to enforce racial segregation.

Answer 7

Sarah T and dgm have actually posted the closest answers to the actual definition.

De jure segregation refers to intentional actions by the state to enforce racial segregation. The Jim Crow laws of the southern states, which endured until the 1960s, are examples of de jure segregation. In contrast, de facto racial segregation, which occurred in other states, was accomplished by factors apart from conscious government activity. Ok, how about this definition offered here:
http://www.adversity.net/Terms_Definitions/TERMS/Segregation.htm
De jure segregation means racial separation forced by specific laws. All such laws were eliminated in the U.S. by the mid-1960s. Therefore, today in the U.S. there is no such thing as de jure segregation.
De facto segregation means racial separation that occurs "as a matter of fact", e.g., by housing patterns (where one lives) or by school enrollment (where one goes to school).

By definition, de facto segregation refers to a homogenous racial grouping, i.e., a group of individuals dominated by one particular race. The reason or cause for the racial homogeneity of such a group is generally presumed to be "bad" and is presumed to have been caused by some form of "racism", i.e., limited opportunity, economic disadvantage, political disadvantage, social disadvantage, and/or the effects of historic discrimination.

However, it is NOT considered de facto segregation if the homogenous racial group is doing well economically, politically, socially, or academically. If this is the case, then the homogenous racial group is considered to be celebrating it's cultural heritage by voluntarily choosing to group together. This is considered to be "good" segregation, although the racial special interests are loathe to refer to it that way.

In practice and by definition, de facto segregation can only occur if both of the following conditions are met:

* The homogenous racial group is a preferred minority (usually black or Hispanic) but is NOT white (and frequently also is NOT Asian)

* The homogenous racial group is defined by adverse economic, social, geographic (neighborhood), educational or political circumstances

The modern civil rights definition of de facto segregation presents many logical paradoxes.

For example, under modern civil rights law, an historically black college is NOT considered to be an example of de facto segregation -- or any type of segregation at all -- because the black students choose to go there voluntarily and because the college's explicit purpose is to benefit black students -- a preferred racial group -- rather than white or Asian students.

Conversely, if a college or university is "majority white" (or Asian) and the proportion of preferred races (black, Hispanic, Native American) enrolled at that college is lower than their proportion in the general population, then that IS considered de facto segregation. The fact that preferred racial groups such as blacks or Hispanics didn't meet the minimum academic achievement requirements for admission to the college or university is presumed to be evidence of racism and discrimination.

De facto segregation is considered to be "bad" segregation and is considered to be actionable under current civil rights law. However, as you have seen above, there are also many examples of "good" segregation -- although the racial quota lobby won't use the term "segregation" to describe them.

For example, the following types of "voluntary segregation" (racial separatism) are NOT regarded as de facto segregation at all under modern civil rights law:

* Racially separatist student organizations such as a black students' association, or an Hispanic students' association, are not considered segregationist or even racist because they benefit a preferred racial group.

* Racially separatist professional organizations such as the Black Engineers Society, or the Black Chamber of Commerce, or the Black Firefighters Association are not considered to be segregationist or even racist because they benefit a preferred racial group.

* Racially separatist businesses such as the Black Entertainment Channel, or the Black National Bank, are not considered to be segregationist because they cater to the presumed business and entertainment interests of a preferred racial group.

* Racially separatist political organizations such as the Congressional Black Caucus are not presumed to be segregationist or racist because their purpose is to advance the racially-exclusive political interests of a preferred racial group.

Under modern civil rights law, de facto segregation occurs when blacks, for example, live in neighborhoods with other blacks which results in the neighborhood schools being largely black. This type of de facto segregation is considered "bad segregation".

Another, similar example of de facto segregation occurs when higher income suburban whites attend their neighborhood schools. The student bodies of such schools tend to be predominantly white, and this is also considered de facto segregation since presumably disadvantaged racial groups who live elsewhere are not receiving the same quality of education.

Federal civil rights laws which prohibit segregation have a very difficult time dealing with so-called "voluntary segregation". Who is the victim when preferred minority racial groups choose to hang out together? Who is the villain?

As a practical matter, under modern civil rights law whites and other supposedly "privileged" racial groups cannot suffer from any form of segregation, de facto or otherwise.

Answer 8

i think its the seoperation for both sexes as in man go with man and woman go with woman

Answer 9

do your own homework