Which statement best distinguishes de jure and de facto segregation and describes typical policy responses?

• A. De jure segregation is separation by law; de facto is by practice; policy responses include anti-discrimination enforcement for de jure and targeted housing, desegregation, and equity-focused planning for de facto.
• B. De jure means segregation by custom; de facto means segregation by law; policy focuses on funding.
• C. Both types are addressed with the same single policy approach.
• D. De jure and de facto are both illegal and require judicial orders only.

Answer: (A)

De jure segregation means separation that is established or required by law, while de facto segregation arises from social practices, housing patterns, or informal norms rather than from a legal mandate. Because one is rooted in legal rules and the other in observed outcomes, the ways to address them differ. To counter de jure segregation, the focus is on enforcing anti-discrimination laws, striking down or altering discriminatory statutes, and ensuring compliance with civil rights protections. For de facto segregation, policy aims at changing the actual patterns people experience—through targeted housing initiatives, desegregation efforts, and equity-focused planning that promotes access to housing, neighborhoods, and schools across racial and economic lines.

The other options misrepresent the concepts or propose inappropriate policy responses. For example, one choice reverses the definitions and reduces policy to funding alone, which misses the enforcement and planning tools central to dismantling legal segregation. Another claims both forms require the same single policy approach, which ignores the distinct levers needed to address laws versus outcomes. A final option suggests both forms are illegal and only judicial orders are needed, which isn’t accurate because de facto segregation isn’t illegal by statute and often requires broader policy and planning actions beyond court orders.