A wise person once said, “There are two topics that you never talk about at a bar. Politics and religion.” Wise as this hypothetical individual may be, they left out the third topic you never discuss at a bar, which is the notorious and polarizing Oxford comma.

The Oxford comma is the comma used after the penultimate item in a list of three or more items. Confused? Take a look at the following sentence without the Oxford comma: A Panda Bear eats, shoots and leaves. Now take a look at the Oxford comma: A Panda Bear eats, shoots, and leaves.

Some argue the Oxford comma changes the meaning of the sentence, which implies that the Panda ate, shot something and then left. If that sentence did not have the second comma, these same people would say now it implies the Panda eats bamboo shoots and leaves off of trees and bushes.

Others would argue the Oxford comma makes no difference and it is perfectly clear that the sentence with only one comma means the Panda ate, shot something and then left. These folks would also argue that the first comma is what changes the meaning of the sentence rather than the comma of the Oxford variety. They would say if the purpose were to convey the Panda’s diet, the phrase “eats shoots and leaves,” doesn’t need a comma at all.

Phew, just writing that was confusing.

Unfortunately, the fiery debate has seeped through the walls of Misericordia and it is threatening to fracture even the closest friendships. Dr. Melissa Sgroi, Department Chair and Professor of Mass Communications and Design, recently had a roaring debate with two of her best friends and colleagues, which took place in a conference room on the humanities wing of the third floor of Mercy Hall.

Fortunately for humankind, this reporter just happened to be in the area and received permission from all parties to document the debate for public record.

Any plans for an actual reporter-controlled interview were immediately scratched as the three colleagues hijacked the debate and started taking shots at one another. Sgroi started off the debate with the first attack, which directly followed a brief introductory conversation about how the other two in the room like the Oxford comma.

“You’re all wrong,” she aggressively declared without further elaboration.

Dr. Patrick Hamilton, Professor and English Department Chair, quickly snapped back. “It’s not a matter of liking the Oxford comma. It’s a matter of it being correct and everything else being wrong,” said Hamilton.

“So, it’s correct to exclude most people in America who read copy on the internet?” Sgroi responded.

Dr. Allan Austin, Professor of History, saw this as a perfect moment to chime in. “I think what Patrick’s arguing for is we need to educate them on the beauty and truth of the Oxford comma,” Austin said as he leaned back in his chair with a smile implying he was impressed by his own comment.

Hamilton quickly shot down Austin’s comment with a far more utilitarian outlook. “It’s not beauty and truth, it’s just grammatical correctness,” he stated emphatically.

Sgroi, outraged by Hamilton’s comment, yelled “No!”

As Hamilton and Sgroi started to argue more about the grammatical correctness of the Oxford comma, Austin desperately tried to steer the conversation back to his ambiguous tagline. “I want to lean on the beauty and truth!” Austin yelled as the other two completely ignored him.
Hamilton pointed to the popular talking point for those in favor of the Oxford comma, which centers around the Oxford comma changing the meaning of a sentence.

“You’re allowed to use the second comma as long as the second comma does effect the meaning, but in a list of three things it does not,” she said with frustration.

As the three continued to talk over each other about the relation between lists and the Oxford comma, Sgroi interjected loudly and mentioned the fact that the Associated Press style guide does not use the Oxford comma. Most digital and print media outlets, including the AP, don’t use the Oxford comma due to printing, which is extremely expensive and often has limited space to the point where every character matters.

At this point, Austin felt the need to interject. “Most people read without the Oxford comma because it’s been imposed upon them. The Oxford comma is actually about liberation,” he said.

After the debate continued to devolve into the three friends shouting over each other, this reporter had enough and called order. They were then instructed to write down and give their thoughts on the following sentence with and without the Oxford comma, “The executor of a will leaves money for John, Bill and Steve.”

Sgroi, of course, insisted you don’t need the Oxford comma, and that it is clear that with or without it that the three men in this sentence are three separate entities. Hamilton on the other hand, made the case that an Oxford comma completely changes the meaning of the sentence.
“With the Oxford comma, John, Bill and Steve are three separate things, but without it, Bill and Steve are a unit,” said Hamilton.

If Hamilton is correct, no Oxford comma would imply Bill and Steve are getting half of the money rather than the money being split three ways. If Sgroi is correct, with or without the Oxford comma still means they are three separate units.

This example shows how serious the Oxford comma can be. If the writer of the will believes in the Oxford comma, Bill and Steve get half of the money and John is furious, but if they don’t believe in the Oxford comma, the money gets distributed equally, which could upset Bill and Steve if they are indeed a unit.

Around this time, the debate quickly went off the rails as the three colleagues with Ph.Ds. started arguing and ranting about parallel sentence structure. Austin decided this was another opportunity to make a deeper point.

“You know what’s more important than your rules and your rules? A happy life,” he said as he pointed at both of his friends.

“What the [heck] does that have to do with anything?” Sgroi said after an awkward moment of silence.

“Dumbest thing I have ever heard,” Hamilton added.

“I am sitting here with a bunch of technocrats that don’t understand truth and beauty,” Austin said randomly.

“Oh, here we go again,” responded Sgroi.

At this point, Hamilton and Austin claimed that they bridge the divide between the two sides because they both have ties to the press, Austin because of his paper boy days, and Hamilton because he is the namesake of this newspaper.

Sgroi, fed up with the debate, interjected. “Can I just say, I understand you two are experts in POPular culture, but what I am arguing for is the democratization of information,” she said as she raised the syllable “pop” with a heavy dose of snobbery.

“I’m sorry, can you just say that with a little more condescension please?” Hamilton said sarcastically.

“POPPPuuularr culture,” Austin said with a laugh as he imitated Sgroi.

Sgroi was referring to the fact that Austin and Hamilton have a podcast called “Pop Shop,” in which they discuss cult topics in popular culture and try to relate them to a topic that is more mainstream. The podcast is produced by WVIA, a National Public Radio station that serves the Northeast and Central Pennsylvania regions, and it can be found on their website (www.wvia.org).

After the debate took a turn into an unrelated discussion about NPR host Terry Gross, Dr. Sgroi summed up her thoughts on the debate.

“I believe in writing to be understood and not being wasteful. Not wasting ink, not wasting paper, and making sure that we have consistency in style,” she said.

“Truth and beauty,” said Austin as he pointed to the phrase written on a whiteboard insinuating it somehow discredited Sgroi’s point.

“I hope you realize that just pointing to that vague undefined phrase is not the mic drop that you seem to think it is,” Hamilton said with irritation.

“The Oxford comma is the truth and the beauty. As a paper boy who carried all of those papers, I happily would have carried the extra weight of the Oxford comma to provide more clarity for my readers,” responded Austin.

After this reporter got sick of all of the nonsense and wanted the debate to wrap up, the three best friends were instructed to first explain what they think of someone who disagrees with them on the Oxford comma and then sum up the most important thing they want people to know about their position on the subject.

“Immoral monster,” said Austin.

“Clubby and exclusionary,” said Sgroi, echoing a popular idea among critics that the Oxford comma is pretentious.

“On the record,” said Hamilton before he briefly paused. “They’re dead to me.”

As far as the most important thing to know about the Oxford comma, Sgroi took the high road and tried to promote her best friends’ podcast. Hamilton decided to take a much lower road.

“It’s important for readers to know that Sgroi is wrong,” he said.

“Can that be the title?” replied Austin.

Yikes.