This is an editorial response to the article “Grammatical error plagues wrestling room, many afflicted and no cure in sight” in the Ames High School paper. The link to the article can be found here:

http://www.my.highschooljournalism.org/ia/ames/ahs/printpage.cfm?aid=133710

This response may be too late, but I had just read the article (and therefore the argument) just recently. I normally would not respond to such an article, but a few lines from the article plagued me.

“And you know who the victims were? They were none other than us, the dedicated students of Ames High, who work hours a day to succeed only to find that the administration they look up to with pride will allow grammatical errors to exist in 468-point font in the school. We are the victims, victims of a wrong that must be righted.”

“the man possibly responsible for this egregious error, wrestling coach Mr. Chad Latch.”

First, I do not want to attack the author of this paper. I applaud his courage and interest in being a journalist. Second, this response is to eliminate the feelings of the writer and other students at Ames high that they were “victims” and that the responsibility for this act has anything to do with Coach Latch of the Ames High Wrestling program. Third, hopefully this response can provide a "cure" for a plague that never existed in the first place. Finally, I want to clear up any assumptions or stereotypes about the intelligence of wrestlers.

I will admit that I am neither an English teacher nor a “linguistics connoisseur.” This response alone may have dozens of grammatical errors; yet, I have to humbly disagree with Ms. Trisha Johnson and Eric Foley and say that the quote:

“Champions are people that failed but refused to quit.”

is grammatically correct and it may actually be more grammatically preferable then the alternative of replacing “that” with “who.”

Let me elaborate. First the article says “When referring to people, you must use who, not that.”

Some of the definitions of “that” from dictionary.com:

1. (used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as pointed out or present, mentioned before, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis)
2. (used as the subject or object of a relative clause, esp. one defining or restricting the antecedent, sometimes replaceable by who, whom, or which)
3. used in various special or elliptical constructions): fool that he is

From those definitions “that” can be used to indicate a person, is interchangeable with “who” and can be used in elliptical constructions such as “fool that he is” or “person that has failed.”

Also – if you blow the dust off your old Webster dictionary you find the following definition:

• As a relative pronoun, that is equivalent to who or which, serving to point out, and make definite, a person or thing spoken of, or alluded to, before, and may be either singular or plural.

But these definitions are somewhat out of context, and this is more of an argument of grammar then of definition.

Lets again look at the two alternatives:

“Champions are people that failed but refused to quit.”

or

“Champions are people who failed but refused to quit.”

Some writers follow a restrictive versus non-restrictive rule for the use of “who” and “that”. "Who" should be used in non-restrictive clauses and "that" should be used in restrictive clauses.

In this usage, the phrase

"people that failed..."

does not mean the same thing as

"people who failed..."

The former says which people are being referred to, the latter presupposes that that is already established. A good rule of thumb is if the following information after the relative pronoun (“that” or “who”) is necessary then use “that” if it is not then use “who”.

“Champions are people” though a correct statement clearly does not mean the same thing as the original quote, therefore it is a restrictive clause and the preferred relative pronoun would be “that.”

The statement “Champions are people that failed but refused to quit,” assumes that there are other people that also failed but did quit. Using “who” does not make this assumption. I think this is the whole point of the quote – these other peoples could have been champions if they would have continued and refused to quit.

If the quote was:

"Ames High wrestlers are champions who failed but refused to quit"

Then “who” would be the correct relative pronoun since champions has already been established and the phrase “Ames High wrestlers are champions” is an acceptable equivalent to the original quote.

Furthermore, most writers do not adhere to this rule, perhaps considering it unnecessary to be explicit about the distinction.
To further bring home the point – when to use “who” “which” or “that”, I point to another example, a quote by our 34th president Dwight D. Eisenhower in his Inaugural Address on January 20, 1953:

“A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.”

People have not yet been established so “that” is used. Using “who” in this case would assume we knew which people the president was talking about.

My last point is even if this quote is grammatically incorrect – it is still a quote. Words spoken within a quote are the quote – not what they meant to say, not what they should of said, not how they should have said it. To change the words of the original author, even if he or she is unknown, would be more of an injustice then any slight grammatical error. Words are a valuable tool and it is important to improve ones mastery of the English language. Grammar is just one aspect of this – the contexts in which words are written or spoken are also important. The structure of words can be different in a letter to the president, a fictional novel, a poem, an email you send a friend, a book report, or an inspirational quote on the walls of a wrestling room. If you look at the quotes of Yogi Berra, you may be challenged to find one that is grammatically correct, yet this is why they are meaningful and memorable.

I just want to close to say that I am a person and a coach involved at the high school at an athletic level. I also work long hours in hopes that the young men and woman of Ames High have the best possible experience and are not “failed” by the school system – both athletically as well as academically. Sometimes we do act in error, but other times we do not. Though their individual actions should not go unquestioned, the cumulative work of Coach Chad Latch, Mr. Judge Johnston, Mr. Michael McGrory, and the Iowa State University should be applauded.

- Coach Andorf

More information can be found here:

When to use “that” versus “who” (or which)

From John M. Lawler
an Associate Professor of Linguistics in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts at the University of Michigan (UM) in Ann Arbor.

1. Restrictive, which restrict the nouns they modify, by giving some essential property, and which are by far the more common type:

1. The man I sent to get the turkey bought a duck instead.
2. I intend to fire the man who bought the duck.
3. The duck that the man bought cost more than a turkey would have.
4. The turkey which we eventually served was overcooked.
   
   In all of these, the relative clauses (introduced respectively by [ZERO], who, that, and which) pin down the nouns they modify and follow (respectively, man, man, duck, and turkey) and therefore are restrictive. They give necessary information.

Which and who (occasionally whom, but that's another thread) can be used in restrictive relatives. And so can that. And, if the relative word isn't the subject of the clause, you can also just use [ZERO] if you like. Compare the first one:

1. The man who(m) I sent to get the turkey...
2. The man that I sent to get the turkey...
3. The man I sent to get the turkey...
   

Since the relative clause has a subject (I) already, the relative word, whatever it is, is unnecessary and may be deleted.
The other type of relative clause is the Non-Restrictive, also called Parenthetic. It gives useful but not necessary information, and is often set off in writing with commas and in speech with intonation dips:

1. The turkey, which was overcooked, was nonetheless flavorful.
2. I deducted the cost of the duck, which I gave to an orphanage.

In non-restrictive relative clauses, that MAY NOT be used. If you did use that, you'd have to do without the commas or intonation dip, and you'd convert the clauses to restrictive use:

The turkey that was overcooked was nonetheless flavorful.
(implies there was another one that wasn't overcooked)

I deducted the cost of the duck that I gave to an orphanage.
(implies there was another, undonated, duck)