The Oxford comma spawned one of the most contentious grammatical debates in the English language. The practice of placing a comma before the conjunctions “and” or “or” in lists of three or more objects is hotly contested — for example, one might write “The Pitt News is informative, dependable, and thought-provoking” rather than “The Pitt News is informative, dependable and thought-provoking.” Both are true and broadly acceptable, with some publications’ styles embracing this punctuational policy and others forgoing it. Proponents of the Oxford comma have argued that omitting the mark can lead to unintentional ambiguity, with critics saying it can hinder readability.

You might notice there are no Oxford commas in this article. It’s no mistake — The Pitt News generally follows the Associated Press Stylebook, a guide that dictates style, usage and grammatical conventions. AP Style is widely trusted among English-language journalists around the world, but their official position on the Oxford comma diverges from the view of many grammar junkies — AP generally discourages the Oxford comma. Hence, The Pitt News doesn’t use it.

The Oxford comma can serve as a critical tool in avoiding confusion in lists. For example, “I saw my parents, Roc and Cathy” could suggest that the writer’s parents are Roc and Cathy — never mind the specifics of that. In cases where the Oxford comma isn’t fundamental to a sentence’s structure, it can nevertheless be an apt stylistic flourish in the proper circumstances. A classic example is “Red, white, and blue” versus “Red, white and blue” — though the meaning of each phrase is identical, the omission of the comma after “white” makes the phrase feel asymmetrical and disjointed. That’s one opinion, and many writers disagree as the preference is ultimately subjective — but we should give writers the discretion to choose on a case-by-case basis.

Popular opinion is split between the Oxford comma camps. In 2014, FiveThirtyEight polled Americans on the sentence “It’s important for a person to be honest, kind[,] and loyal” and found that 57% of respondents opted for the comma after the penultimate list item while 43% did not. 

AP clearly senses they’re in the middle of a grammatical firestorm, and they appeared to soften their stance in a 2017 Twitter thread. 

“We don’t ban Oxford commas,” the thread said. “If omitting a comma could lead to confusion or misinterpretation, then use the comma.” 

The concession was substantial, but not enough. What shall the silent majority of Oxford comma enthusiasts on our editorial staff tell our wide-eyed first-year writers when they present us with a concise list whose clarity is uninhibited by a measly comma before “and”? Are they expected to break their hearts and compromise their principles, sentencing them to a prison of grammatical conformity? 

In no fair newsroom should a writer be forced to omit their precious comma because it isn’t integral to comprehending the sentence. Writers and editors alike must demand the right to insert the Oxford comma on any basis and any occasion, whether to avoid ambiguity, to enhance the perceived flow of a sentence or simply as a matter of conscience.

This article contains ample opportunities for tasteful Oxford commas. Yet, our copy editors will have surely blotted them out by the time the article sees daylight on the newsstands, seeking and destroying each minuscule mark. They don’t do this out of a grammatical vendetta, but in the maintenance of a perverse punctuational status quo. Perhaps someday they will adopt the Oxford comma as a form of civil disobedience and urge other publications to follow in their footsteps.

Meanwhile, the Oxford comma activists, advocates and allies will sulk in the shadows of The Pitt News office, lurk in the margins of English conventions and wait for our day of reckoning to arrive.