As a former teacher of English, proofreader, copywriter, and author of countless marketing, technical, and education pieces, I’m weighing in with an opinion on the Oxford Comma. The Oxford Comma, as you may well be aware, is the comma used in items in a series as the final comma before the conjunction. In the very first sentence in this blog post, it is used twice. My argument for its use is very straight forward: it makes sense, both literally and figuratively.

Unfortunately, since the commonly consulted references for grammar do not agree on the usage of the Oxford comma, American students are routinely taught the ridiculous notion that it is “optional.” Based on the simple justification of giving someone struggling with the differences between an adverb and a gerund a clear, straight-forward rule that is in fact never incorrect should be sufficient justification on its own, with one horrible exception: money.

It costs money to print a comma.

Now, it is quite possible that you now think that I’m being ridiculous. What could money have to do with this? Well, let’s take a look:

Sources that recommend the use of the Oxford Comma:

• The Chicago Manual of Style (University of Chicago Press)
• The MLA Handbook (Modern Language Association)
• APA style (Publication Manual for the American Psychological Association)
• Oxford University Style Guide

Sources that recommend NOT using the Oxford Comma:

• The Associated Press Stylebook

So…what do we have here? It looks to me like we have four style books written by grammarians and academics that give a clear, easy to use rule on commas to improve readability and comprehension. And we have one source whose only concern is getting as many words into a confined space as possible to sell papers and magazines. I.e., fewer commas means less white space on a page, and the amount of white space on a page is a business concern. These are the same geniuses that suggested that two spaces after a period is no longer required for no other reason that Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t think Facebook should be paying to store all those blanks in the Cloud…

Look, I get it. Journalism is a business, and whatever editors and copywriters do to jam more content on a page to increase some measurable “good” is their business. I’ve read the argument that the serial comma “makes the sentence look formal and stuffy.” Um, to whom does this particular straw man appear stuffy? Stuffy is in the eye of the beholder; content that is easy to read and clear in its meaning is the goal here. “Stuffy” is going to be the reaction to what is said regardless of the punctuation.

The other objection to the serial comma is “the meaning should be clear without it.” Again, this is assumptive – the purpose of punctuation is to produce as unambiguous a reading experience as possible. Telling the reader that they should just figure out the sentence themselves to reduce white space on the printed page means approaching the art of the written word with the heart of a stingy accountant rather than the wit of a poet.

I want to be clear: I’m not objecting to journalists writing in accordance to the rules of the AP Stylebook. That’s well and good. My objection is to the idea that what they do to produce journalistic pieces in print and online media that maximizes the profits of their bosses and boards is actually the best grammar rule for the English language. Based on which sources recommend the rule and the justification offered for use and non-use of the Oxford comma, grammatically speaking the soundest principle would be to teach the rule and drop the idea that it is optional. Keep the rule that journalists need to follow to maximize profits as an exception that only applies to them. Teach it as an exception in journalism classes. But let’s drop the false pretense that this has anything to do with grammar.