[Grammar] Discriminate

[sky3120]

Hello, how are you? Here in my country, there is an interesting issue about the word "discriminate".

Most people say that "We discriminate against the policy" is right, but the others say that "We are

discriminated against the policy" is also correct although most people do not agree about it.

So the issue is that "be discriminated against something" is also acceptable nowadays to native English speakers?

Thank you as always in advance.

 

[JMurray]

Hello, how are you? Here in my country, there is an interesting issue about the word "discriminate".
Most people say that "We discriminate against the policy" is right, but the others say that "We are
discriminated against the policy" is also correct although most people do not agree about it.
So the issue is that "be discriminated against something" is also acceptable nowadays to native English speakers?


It's not at all clear what you mean by either of the examples. In the sense in which I think you want to use it, "to discriminate" means to treat a person or group unfairly or unjustly compared to the way you treat others.
If there is a policy which you feel discriminates against your group, then: "We are discriminated against by this policy".
If you don't like a policy, then perhaps: "We object to the policy", or "We are demonstrating against the policy".

not a teacher

 

[sky3120]

Sorry, but what I wanted to know is if "to be discriminated against something" is fine in grammar and used, because according to dictionaries, only "to discriminate against something" is written and available.

 

[JMurray]

Sorry, but what I wanted to know is if "to be discriminated against something" is fine in grammar and used, because according to dictionaries, only "to discriminate against something" is written and available.

To me, "to be discriminated against something", as in "we are discriminated against the policy", makes no sense.

 

[emsr2d2]

I think part of the problem is that you have seen "to discriminate against something" and then you have tried to make an example using "policy" at that "something". That doesn't work. Only certain things/people can suffer discrimination and those things are usually groups of people.

For example: The policy governing marriage in the UK states that a man and a woman can legally get married. A same-sex couple (ie two men or two women) can't. They can have a "civil partenership ceremony" but it is not "marriage" in the eyes of the law. So same-sex couples (homosexual couples) do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples. It is the view of many people in the UK that the policy discriminates against homosexuals. This could also be reworded as "Homosexuals are discriminated against by the policy" but that doesn't sound as natural.

Your example is the wrong way round. No-one is discriminating against the policy. The policy simply exists, having been invented by the government. It is the terms of the policy which discriminate against one particular group of citizens.

(Please note that I did not choose what is a fairly contentious issue in order to be contentious. It was the first example that popped into my head about discrimination so let's not get into a debate about same-sex marriage!)

 

[Tdol]

Sorry, but what I wanted to know is if "to be discriminated against something" is fine in grammar and used, because according to dictionaries, only "to discriminate against something" is written and available.

Out of interest, which dictionaries say this?

Cambridge, for instance, uses the form in one of its examples:
discriminate verb (TREAT DIFFERENTLY) - definition in British English Dictionary & Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionary Online