This is a text-book libelous attack article meant to financially damage a for-profit school The one-side attack article and the New York Times attack piece it is based on, is a shameful excuse for faux-journalism.

They acknowledge there is alternative evidence they've seen, but refuse to mention what it is. Instead they find as many voices of the one opposing side to include as possible, attempting to gaslight the reader into believing that the reason for firing, was not the reason administration told them. This is clear and blatant libel and sure wouldn't have been protected if this was about Diebold/ElectionDominator from a Fox article.

Michael Blankenship, a university spokesman, said in a statement that Houghton “has never terminated an employment relationship based solely on the use of pronouns in staff email signatures.”

“Over the past years, we’ve required anything extraneous be removed from email signatures, including Scripture quotes,” he said.

From the biased accuser:

In Ms. Zelaya’s termination letter, a photo of which was widely shared online, she was told she was fired “as a result of your refusal to remove pronouns in your email signature” as well as for criticizing an administration decision to the student newspaper.

("Widely shared" termination letter not linked or cited. Cannot confirm authenticity or accurate of projected interpretation.)