The comments have gotten into the weeds, in my view. The essence of the original post was dissatisfaction at coerced speech at universities, MSU in particular. A close parallel from US history is the case of Speiser v. Randall , in which the veteran Lawrence Speiser refused the oath, “I do not advocate the overthrow of the Government … by … unlawful means …” required of him to be eligible for a tax exemption. If a university or some other employer can compel me to sign something I agree with, then my doing so would imply that it can compel me also to sign something that I disagree with. Hence, I would advocate that we disagree with signing any *compelled* oath.

I don't think Quintanilla has made a compelling case (sorry, I cannot help make that pun). But I am certain that such compelled speech is common at universities. Sharing of pronouns, if mandatory or somehow expected at the beginning of meetings or on professional profiles, is misguided at best.