I realise the letter starts with a disclaimer about not attacking the creators, who seem to have been browbeaten into actually endorsing it, but it also spends two pages bashing them with phrases like "a feather in the cap—for members of the non-marginalized culture—hearing people", "reaping the rewards...of cultural appropriation" and "this is exploitation" which clearly apply to them more than to the PR office; internal consistency is not one of its strongpoints.
FWIW, I don't think the concept of cultural appropriation is inherently specious, but I do think many if not most accusations of cultural appropriation are, and suggesting that the idea to demo a tech product as a potential translation gadget is "exploitation" is stupid and counterproductive beyond belief. I mean, if a student at this university in future has a choice between pursuing a neat idea for an app they think might help deaf people or a different project, which way is this letter going to nudge their decision? They could have made the same point about the disadvantages of not engaging the deaf community with the project at its inception and the resulting practical shortcomings by structuring the letter as an offer of help...
FWIW, I don't think the concept of cultural appropriation is inherently specious, but I do think many if not most accusations of cultural appropriation are, and suggesting that the idea to demo a tech product as a potential translation gadget is "exploitation" is stupid and counterproductive beyond belief. I mean, if a student at this university in future has a choice between pursuing a neat idea for an app they think might help deaf people or a different project, which way is this letter going to nudge their decision? They could have made the same point about the disadvantages of not engaging the deaf community with the project at its inception and the resulting practical shortcomings by structuring the letter as an offer of help...