Don Rubin, former Chair of the Department of Theatre at York University in Toronto, is a pioneer in bringing the Shakespeare Authorship Question to college students. Anyone who paid a visit during those sessions knows for sure that the issue will be decided once and for all by the new generation.
I want to thank Professor Rubin publicly for his scholarly work among students, for whom he presented the evidence while encouraging them to debate it among themselves and come to their individual conclusions – a genuine spirit of free and open inquiry, creating an excitement about the life and work of “Shakespeare” that is seldom if ever found in most of today’s classrooms.
And I’d also like to express my gratitude for his advance comment on my new book, 100 Reasons Shake-speare was the Earl of Oxford:
“Written with wit, humor, erudition and the instincts of a real working actor, Hank Whittemore’s 100 Reasons bristles with humanity as it seeks to convince readers that the name Shakespeare was simply a pseudonym.
“Begun as a search by the author for the roots of Shakespeare’s titanic creativity, this extraordinary document becomes a personal narrative of the life of the wild and witty Edward de Vere, the most erudite aristocrat in the court of Queen Elizabeth I.
“And Whittemore does ultimately convince us that de Vere was the real Shakespeare. A truly original approach to academic research, this forensic examination of centuries-old evidence is well worth the attention of academics and non-academics alike.”
Hank Whittemore's Shakespeare Blog 
“Using old-fashioned scholarship and 21st-century computerized tools to analyze texts, the edition’s international scholars have contended that Shakespeare’s collaboration with other playwrights was far more extensive than has been realized until now.”
If this is accurate, this may be how the establishment may be able to transition to accepting de Vere as author of Shakespeare’s works. Science can bail them out. “We couldn’t have known!” they can plaint. “No one could have known! Not until science showed us the truth, and led us to de Vere’s door.”
“I do agree that this “Three Part” work of King Henry VI is a masterpiece, but it is a masterpiece by Marlowe as well as Shakespeare. Was there not a moral and a cultural responsibility for Rebecca Eaton to acknowledge that the OUP for the first time in centuries has credited Christopher Marlowe as fully the co-author of King Henry VI in its several parts? Is authenticity of creativity not an issue? Is artistic credit, then and now, now and then, not an issue?”
Doesn’t it seem that the establishment can’t accept too much proper attribution based on scientific methods, since those methods could lead also to de Vere?
Quotations above from Seamas Cain’s article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/16/the-hollow-crown-masterpiece-or-not/