God Save the Oxford Comma

Of the many issues facing journalism today, probably none is as globally important or as well known as the persecution of the Oxford comma and its valiant defenders.

This humble piece of punctuation — also known as the serial comma — is used to cleanly separate items in a list from the word “and” — as in “Dumbach, Cuneo, and Cudahy.” It protects meaning and holds any good list together, but for a century it’s been cast out of writing by publications worldwide.

Even today, big names like The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune and The Loyola Phoenix all require their staff — from the newest writers to the most seasoned editors — to sacrifice the Oxford comma’s easy readability at the altar of the Associated Press Stylebook.

Despite the AP’s long and respected history, the actual purpose for the ban remains unclear and hard to justify, even for rabid editors.

It’s fine — and even necessary — to have standards and styles, especially for a field like journalism. But with every article I read and write, I become increasingly convinced the AP guidebook could use a tune-up. In the modern world, AP style is one of the very few conservative styles still banning the Oxford comma, while more rigorous, sensible styles like MLA, APA and Chicago, all recommend it.

Notably, these styles are all cross-industry standards. The Oxford comma appears in magazines, like The New Yorker and National Geographic. It also appears in academic writing as the contentious comma was introduced by Oxford University Press in 1905. 

Even book publishing companies defend and use the Oxford comma, with Penguin Random House going so far as to sell an “Oxford Comma Preservation Society” tote bag, while AP is restricted to the wayside of newspapers and online journalism.

Detractors say it’s unnecessary, but the Oxford comma isn’t just another splotch of ink on a page. In a sentence about Chicago traffic, for example, it’s the thin speck keeping “two drunk drivers, Lu Wolf, and Sister Jean,” safely in separate lanes — totally different from the Oxford-free implications of “two drunk drivers, Lu Wolf and Sister Jean.” Here, a single omission turns a near miss into a PR disaster.

Overly restrictive stylistic standards, particularly those banning necessary, everyday punctuation, put writers in a box and cramp good communication. Heaven knows — as do my editors — not all punctuation use is created equal. But blanket bans on colons, parentheses and, yes, the Oxford comma, come at the cost of smoother, cleaner, clearer writing.

Anti-Oxford fanatics point to the print origins of journalism as their main justification, saying the tiny dot is an expensive “waste of ink.” But even the vaunted Associated Press — who the Los Angeles Times has called “the enemy” of the Oxford comma, has begun to roll back its anti-comma stance, changing their guidelines in 2023 to put clarity over pocket change by allowing the Oxford comma in some circumstances.

Supporters of the fringe and extremist anti-comma faction like to point out it isn’t technically required for good grammar, as if this constitutes a solid defense for killing readability. Meanwhile, nay-sayers offer few — if any — reasons for leaving it out. Predictably, the most common arguments against it seem to come from rogue editorialists’ sick, biased senses of personal taste instead of actual concerns about consistent style.

The AP’s recent — yet tentative — admission of the Oxford comma’s necessity is a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, the style guide continues to hold onto a confusing set of backwards anti-comma rules that apparently exist for little reason other than to dump busywork onto editors, and give professors an excuse to heap their students with half-point deductions.

Writing in the 21st century needs 21st century style rules — ones encouraging understanding, free from the divisions and English-department civil wars the AP seems content to promote. Punctuation should be standardized — not just for our writing, not just for our news, but for the future of journalism and the quality of public discourse

Free writers. Free journalism. Free speech.

God save the Oxford comma.