My point--and I may be spitballing a bit here, but I think it's valid--is that CSUN made the choice to take money from a company that didn't do any real accessibility work. That reflects badly on CSUN just as much as it does anyone else, and from what I know of CSUN, a company like the one you're describing shouldn't have ever been represented.
https://nfb.org/about-us/press-room/national-convention-spon...
I was unaware of this particular incident, but AccessiBe has had a bad reputation in the blind community for several months at least. Incidentally, I helped develop a browser extension to block AccessiBe and similar "accessibility overlays".
"But why did you do that?" "We'll display your logo to the same level of comprehensibility as your software provides to our users. Feel free to get back to us as it improves."
Also organizations are not monolithic singular minds, especially as they get bigger and bigger. They are groups of people and one end doesn't talk to the other is quite common.
I find a lot of questions, such as this one, boil down to resource management. It's easy to look in from the outside, judge an organization based on what you can see of its resource allocation, and use this to infer emotions. Thus $ORG does clearly not care about $SUBJECT.
Some strange alchemy has now taken place. The question is suddenly no longer about resources and priorities. Now it's about empathy, compassion, decency, and human dignity. To fail to share someone's priorities is now to imply that you do not regard them as human.
When questions of infinite competing priorities over finite resources are rendered into questions of human dignity, it's been my experience that genuine discourse becomes impossible. Perhaps that is the point.
Nevertheless, I appreciate that talking about whether a company or its leadership care about this stuff is beside the point. I'm calling on Cloudflare to do the right thing, regardless of whether they care about it.