As a member of the anti-Oxford faction who holds The Associated Press Stylebook near and dear to his heart, I feel it is my duty to refute the claims made in the Collegian opinion from Feb. 26 titled “The Oxford comma: An issue of our time.”

In journalistic writing, there is a long list of conventions to which writers are obligated to adhere. Over the years, newspapers and other periodicals have been subject to tabloidization, gradually resembling one another in language and content. Furthermore, most publications defer to the Associated Press when their own style guides fail them (or, at least, the Collegian does). So it is no wonder that the Oxford comma has turned into a rather unorthodox phenomenon in the field of journalism. 

Some might argue that journalistic conventions are not to be blindly upheld without a pragmatic line of reasoning. The practice of disfavoring the Oxford comma originally began as a way to conserve limited space in newspapers. However, with the rise of digital journalism, the issue of space has dwindled in significance and is now completely obsolete in online publications. Moreover, even in printed copies, omitting a few dozen commas hardly saves one a considerable amount of space anyway. 

Still, there is an argument to be made for avoiding the Oxford comma in journalism. Maintaining uniformity in language is characteristic of reputable newspapers and other professional media outlets. While scrupulously abiding by a rigid set of guidelines may seem daunting and unnecessary at times, journalists will quickly find that their writing is susceptible to disarray and unprofessionalism without consistency in style. 

But, you might ask, why should I resist the urge to use the Oxford comma if I’m not a journalist? 

I will give you the long answer first. One of the core principles underlying reporting — and, dare I say, writing at large — is brevity. Effective communication arises not from opaque, circumlocutory prose but from intelligible, concise language. My claim is that the Oxford comma is, without exception, utterly superfluous and redundant. I am aware that this is a rather delicate point of contention, but no Oxford fanatic has yet been able to demonstrate that its routine inclusion lends the English language clarity that cannot otherwise be achieved through careful phrasing and good grammar. 

Consider the following classic example: I love my parents, God and Robbie Lifson ’27. Surely one might be inclined to assert that, without the Oxford comma, the sentence implies that my parents are appositionally God and Lifson, which would unfortunately be a false statement. 

In practice, however, examples of this sort are rarely encountered outside discussions of the Oxford comma itself. One could easily change the order of the words — Robbie Lifson ’27, God and my parents would work splendidly — or simply steer clear of such generic phrasing altogether. (English is an expressive language with a surprising variety of sentence structures; you can certainly do better than the first lazy list that springs to mind.) There are plenty of other terrible, albeit hilarious, examples you can find online. If you are still unconvinced, I implore you to go through each one of them and take a brief second to ask yourself: Would I truly ever write this sentence in good conscience? I hope not. You are at Kenyon.

Interestingly enough, the use of the Oxford comma has never been a truly established convention to begin with. It soared into sudden popularity in 2008 following the release of the indie-pop band Vampire Weekend’s single “Oxford Comma,” which, by the way, has little to do with the punctuation mark itself, and again in 2017 thanks to a $10 million lawsuit that centered on a poorly written sentence with faulty parallelism. Yet the Oxford comma has long been taught in many middle and high school English classrooms, in which it is often accepted as a universal rule without room for dispute. It saddens me to know that thousands of innocent, malleable students are currently being indoctrinated into fervently believing that using the Oxford comma is the only “correct” way of constructing a list. 

That being said, I am not arguing that everyone must switch to the anti-Oxford comma faction. As much as it pains me to admit, it is a matter of preference and style. It also goes without saying that no style guide is inherently superior to another — yes, I am trying to appease the Chicago Manual of Style enthusiasts.

So here is my short answer: You should absolutely not abandon the Oxford comma purely on my account. Instead, I hope you do your own research, consult a couple of grammar books and practice writing both with and without it — develop your unique style, hone your personal voice and find what works best for you. You are at the “writer’s college,” after all.

Erik Kim ’27 is an English and mathematics major from Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He can be reached at kim16@kenyon.edu.