Shulamit Reinharz’s comments regarding Brandeis’s rescinding an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali (“ ‘Free inquiry’ vs. ‘diversity,’ ’’ Opinion, Sept. 9) are faulty for an obvious reason: Getting an honorary degree is an honor. Commencement is a celebration, not an academic event, like a class or seminar. You can’t discuss or rebut what the speaker says.

Honorary degrees are political actions, where universities approve of public figures. In this case, it was stopped by another political action from the faculty. If Hirsi Ali had been prevented from speaking in a seminar, then we’d really have had a free-speech issue.

Reinharz’s failed attempt to block Nadia Abu El-Haj’s tenure at Barnard, which she cites without names, contrasts with her support of Hirsi Ali. But I don’t think either of her choices has anything to do with free speech. They are consequences of her ardent Zionism, left out of her op-ed.

Abu El-Haj is Palestinian and writes about ideological uses and misuses of archeology in Israel. Hirsi Ali is a critic of Islam and pro-Israeli. These ideological perspectives explain Reinharz’s remarks. How could they be missing from the op-ed?

Despite asserting that “a great education requires . . . teaching students how to evaluate ideas, how to define criteria upon which reasonable people will agree,’’ reasonable people disagree. Ask the Supreme Court: Otherwise, all votes would be 9-0 (or 8-0) without rancor.

Or do reasonable people consequently agree with what Reinharz has to say? Clearly not.

Harry Mairson

Cremona, Italy

The writer is a professor of computer science at Brandeis University.