Grammar Matter (?): that vs who

One mechanical or stylistic pet peeves that got violated most in the SP2010 semester is the careless or inconsistent use of that vs. who. These words (along with "which") introduce a type of relative clause, which is particularly difficult for speakers of Asian languages - because relative clauses don't exist in their native tongues. Relative clauses are only found in European languages (tho some Native American languages have adopted the grammatical structure due to the influence of Spanish). But the "That/ who" distinction discussed here is a primarily native-English speaker issue. This concern is shared by many of my colleagues, and this issue sparked the longest dialogue posted to a teaching list-serv this year. Consider some examples. A colleague posted the following, and asked us to compare:

She was a student that worried about the finer points.

To this:

She was a student who worried about the finer points.

It's small and fussy, but in my ear it's like calling a person "it."

I whole-heartedly agree. "That" is way overused - and it denies humanity to the word it refers to - its antecedent. It reminds me of a self-described " conservative Christian" who referred to "children that are abused." Denying humanity to a race or class of people is the first step to violence against that group: the irony. Another prof. here offered:

I agree that it's most important just to get students thinking about word choices. It's pretty common, though, for personalized animals, like pets, to be referred to as "who." However, I too prefer students to refer to people with "who," even when the student wants to write "the damn cop that gave me the ticket!"

Grammar Girl weighs in on the subject with her customary verve here. And Grammarbook.com is less equivocal and more succinct.