You can safely discuss whatever you like but espousing Oxford's authorship is guaranteed to damage your credibility as a student of Early Modern English literature. For good reasons.
Modern scholarship is engaged in the authorship debate but not with flimsy conspiracy theorists. Since computerised stylometry eliminated candidates like Oxford, the process has been used to build an ever-more detailed map of the DNA of Elizabethan and Jacobean theatre using the entire database of digital texts from the period.
The Oxfordian portrayal of academia as a resistant, hidebound, closed-minded, myopic barrier to the authorship issue is now as dead as a dodo. Far from being unwilling to consider the issues, maybe as much as a quarter of the English academic establishment, whose rigidity they love to mock, is now fully engaged in reviewing Shakespearean authorship.
The new directions, supported by computerised stylometry, point towards a collaborative ambience in which plays were not just created and produced but adapted and updated by dramatists with fingers in hundreds of pies outside their own kitchens. The ability to identify small fragments of one author's work in another is greatly advancing our knowledge of the collaborative process.
And the idea that an anonymous Earl is hiding in there, unseen, unnamed, covered by a conspiracy isn't just ridiculous, it's completely impossible. Unworthy of mention. Although advancing Oxford's authorship candidature in any English Faculty has always been a surefire way to invite ridicule and low grades, there has never been a worse time than the present to suggest that the 17th Earl of Oxford's hand is visible in the Shakespearean canon. Other hands are being detected and identified but not that of Oxford, who couldn't write four lines of iambic pentameter without making 8 mistakes.
There is NOTHING of merit in Oxfordianism. If you value your credibility, don't mention it.