I don't see what's wrong with people who aren't trained in literary criticism coming in and making opinions about it. This is the same trend that you see when you hear uneducated people talking about modern art. They're confused, and that's okay. That doesn't mean that there's actually nothing there. Though I am wondering what's at stake for literary criticism being told something like this. Capitalism has already divided the resistances to itself against themselves: it's not enough to be a feminist, you have to be an X(X, pardon the chromosome joke) type of feminist if you're really resisting, it's not enough to be a Marxist you have to be a Y type of Marxist, and same with your thinker/method of choice. The joke is on all of us because the engineers think that deconstruction on the whole is close to useless at solving the world's problems. And it will be unless we make the case to them that it's useful. I think that us in the humanities already know that we're not doing as well as we'd like to be and this is shining a light on it.

Critical theory needs cross-breeding. Out of your bunkers, into the public squares. Get some sunlight, make some new friends. The air is getting a bit too stagnant around our departments.

And as for the claim that Derrida speaks this way because he's found problems with the idea with everyday, direct language: I don't believe you. You will still need words to communicate wordlessness if instruction is your goal. From the looks of it, I think that dense language props up people from criticism, slows people from entering, and generally contributes to closing off critical theory from the rest of the world and to making critical theory itself hierarchical and silencing.