A conversation with Pete Peterson, dean of Pepperdine University’s School of Public Policy.
For decades, Middle East Studies programs and centers across the country have acted more as hubs of ideological indoctrination than as places to educate future leaders committed to advancing American interests in the region.
The antisemitic and anti-Israel protests that followed the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks made the public more aware of what these programs have become. Many of them played a role in organizing protests and encampments at top universities, including Cornell and Columbia. It’s now common to see faculty affiliated with these programs participating in openly antisemitic chants and rhetoric.
It has become clear that Middle East Studies in the United States is largely dominated by left-leaning administrators and faculty. Pete Peterson, dean of the School of Public Policy at Pepperdine University, recognized that something had to change.
Pete Peterson is leading the launch of a new master’s program in Middle East Studies at Pepperdine. Rooted in a belief in American exceptionalism and focused on U.S. national security, the program aims to offer a more balanced and intellectually honest approach to the region, one that stands in clear contrast to the prevailing trends in the field, such as promoting Critical Race Theory, denying Israel’s right to exist, or portraying the United States as a colonial power.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Martin Center: What is the current state of Middle East Studies programs and centers in the United States?
Pete Peterson: It’s fair to say that a lot has come to light since the horrific events of October 7, 2023. But the problems within Middle East Studies as a discipline have been building for decades. One of the professors in our new program, Martin Kramer, wrote a book back in 2001 titled Ivory Towers in the Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America.
The ideological capture of Middle East Studies departments isn’t new—it’s been a longstanding issue. What’s changed is that recent events, particularly the wave of anti-Israel protests on college campuses, have brought these problems into clearer public view.
One of the overlooked aspects of those protests is that many were either organized by or strongly supported by faculty and students from Middle East Studies departments. You didn’t see that kind of involvement from engineering departments or medical schools.
In many ways, what we’ve seen since October 7 is a manifestation of deeper problems in the field that have been festering for a long time.
Martin Center: Many of these programs have become hubs for radical ideological indoctrination. How do you intend to ensure that, a decade or two from now, your program doesn’t suffer the same fate?
Pete Peterson: That’s a great question. To understand how we respond to these challenges, we first need to look at why they’ve emerged specifically within Middle East Studies. In my view, the growing ideological capture of these departments stems from two main factors.
First, there’s been a significant expansion of critical theory into the field. This framework views the world through binaries [of] oppressor and oppressed, colonizer and colonized, haves and have-nots. Originally rooted in other disciplines, this perspective has now shaped how many scholars approach the Middle East. Within this lens, the U.S. and Israel are often cast as the colonizers or oppressors.
I think it caught many Americans off guard, especially those unfamiliar with this ideological framework, when, just days after the horrific Hamas attacks on Israel, campus protesters were already labeling Israel the oppressor, even as civilians were still being killed. That response wasn’t spontaneous; it was the result of an ideological shift that hasn’t always been part of Middle East Studies.
Second, there’s the issue of foreign funding. Over the years, we’ve seen increased financial support from Middle Eastern governments and entities flowing into these departments. That funding has shaped the curriculum, influenced hiring decisions, and even affected student recruitment. And it’s contributed to a rise in anti-Zionist and, at times, openly antisemitic incidents.
At Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service, for example, a department chair was reportedly removed after making inflammatory comments about the U.S. following attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities.
I often explain this dynamic by drawing a comparison to Confucius Institutes—a major concern in higher ed five or six years ago. In that case, we saw how foreign funding influenced classroom content, faculty selection, and even student admissions. The same pattern is playing out in many Middle East Studies programs today.
Martin Center: How is your master’s program going to differ from existing Middle East Studies programs?
Pete Peterson: First off, we’re not taking any foreign funding for this program. It will be supported entirely by American donors and foundations.
Second, we’re limiting international students to no more than 25 percent of the student body. We definitely want international students to be part of the program, but the primary focus is on serving American students.
That said, there will only be a handful of international students in the first cohort, mainly because we weren’t allowed to promote the program earlier—and there are always visa challenges.
Third, the curriculum is built around three main pillars:
- Understanding the history, politics, and societies of the contemporary Middle East;
- Understanding how American foreign policy toward the region has developed over time;
- Gaining practical skills through a strong professional policy toolkit.
Martin Center: Can you talk more about these pillars?
Pete Peterson: The first pillar focuses on American grand strategy and the role of the United States in the world. We don’t begin with the assumption that America is inherently evil or, by default, an oppressor nation.
The second pillar explores the Middle East itself—the relationships between countries, the politics, and the dynamics on the ground. There’s room for debate about Israeli policy on all kinds of issues. But there won’t be a debate over whether Israel has a right to exist or should be part of the map of the Middle East.
The third pillar is what we’re calling the “professional toolkit.” It includes a set of practical courses designed to prepare students for careers in public service and related fields—because we expect that many of them will go on to serve in those roles.
When we were developing the curriculum, our goal was to take the best elements from existing Middle East Studies programs but also to draw from the strongest aspects of graduate-level national-security programs. This program is really a blend of the two: a Middle East Studies program with the depth and practicality of a national-security focus.
Martin Center: At first glance, one might say you’re missing a crucial component for understanding the region: language. Do you plan to include a language requirement in the program?
Pete Peterson: When it comes to language training, it’ll be offered in a co-curricular format to help students develop or strengthen their skills. We wanted to keep the for-credit coursework focused on Middle East Studies and the three core pillars I mentioned earlier. What we’re seeing so far is that most of our students are already bringing some level of language proficiency into the program, but all students will be tested on their language skills before they graduate.
Martin Center: You’ve partnered with the Washington Institute for this initiative. Why did you choose them as your institutional partner?
Pete Peterson: For a few different reasons. First, just to be clear, they actually reached out to us. Expanding our presence in Washington, D.C., has been part of our strategic plan for some time, so the timing made sense. We were introduced to the Washington Institute, which had been in conversations with several academic institutions about the possibility of launching a new program.
That conversation started a little over a year ago. I was already familiar with their work in the region and knew many of their top scholars.
The Institute is well known for its bipartisan approach to Middle East policy. It’s respected across the political spectrum, just as much on the left as on the right. For over 40 years, it has built a strong reputation on Capitol Hill, working with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. So when the chance came to explore creating a new program, the Washington Institute felt like a natural fit.
Martin Center: You also pride yourself on a unique financial model: free tuition, without taking money from foreign governments or entities. Why are these two elements important to the success and integrity of your program?
Pete Peterson: The reason we’re only accepting funding from American donors goes back to what we discussed earlier. We’ve seen the negative impact foreign money can have on programs like this, and we wanted to be upfront about that, even if a foreign donor’s mission aligns with ours.
What’s been exciting is that we’ve been able to attract some of the best and brightest students to a program that, just five months ago, many of them didn’t even know existed. This speaks to our commitment to viewpoint diversity and to making the program financially accessible.
That combination of intellectual openness and strong scholarship support has led to an overwhelming response, both in the number of applications we’ve received and in their overall quality.
Martin Center: In your media appearances, you’ve said you want to attract the best and brightest. Pepperdine University is known for attracting conservative-leaning students. What is your recruitment strategy? Will you focus solely on right-of-center students or aim for broader ideological diversity?
Pete Peterson: We’re certainly viewed that way, especially at the School of Public Policy, which leans more center-right. I think that’s a fair assessment. At the same time, we welcome progressive students. They’re going to receive a different kind of policy education than they would elsewhere, and I can guarantee that. It all comes back to our broader commitment to viewpoint diversity. We’re not here to force progressive students to change how they think.
What we want is for all of our students to dig deeper into why they believe what they believe, while also gaining a real understanding of how others think. That same commitment to intellectual openness is built into the Middle East Studies program.
Looking at our applicant pool, it’s clear there’s political diversity. No question about it. And I believe that’s because of our wider approach to viewpoint diversity. It’s what’s attracting students from both the Left and the Right to this new program.
As I mentioned earlier, we begin with a couple of core commitments. One is that America plays an exceptional role in the world. We can and should debate what that role looks like, but we start from that premise.
The second is that Israel belongs in the family of nations and remains a vital part of the Middle East. We’re open to discussing and debating Netanyahu and Israeli policy, of course, but we begin with the understanding that Israel’s legitimacy is not up for debate.
Martin Center: Do you see this master’s program serving as a bridge to doctoral studies? How will it prepare graduates to succeed in PhD programs?
Pete Peterson: I think this program will be quite similar to our [Master in Public Policy] program. About seven to ten percent of our MPP graduates go on to pursue doctoral degrees. With the new Middle East Studies program, we’ll offer students a rigorous master’s-level education and mentorship from our faculty to help place them in PhD programs that either share our educational approach or are at least open to viewpoint diversity in the field. We’ve been doing this successfully for years in the MPP program, serving as a strong bridge to competitive doctoral programs.
Martin Center: In your piece for RealClear Education, you acknowledged this is a gamble but one based on two solid bets, including the idea that the Middle East will remain a focus of American foreign policy. However, recent public-opinion surveys suggest declining interest and support. For example, Gallup reports that only 46 percent of Americans now express sympathy for Israel, the lowest in 25 years. A Pew survey shows more than half of U.S. adults view Israel unfavorably, and a recent Economist/YouGov poll found only 16 percent support U.S. military action in a conflict between Israel and Iran. Are you discouraged by these trends? How do you think they will affect your program’s future, and do you still believe your bet will pay off?
Pete Peterson: So far, we’re seeing strong interest both in the number of applications and their quality, which really reinforces the point I’ve been making. There’s a big difference between having a serious debate about Israeli policy or America’s role in the Middle East and saying that the State of Israel shouldn’t exist or that the U.S. has no business in the region at all.
I fully understand and welcome that Americans hold a range of views on the U.S. role in global affairs, including the Middle East. That kind of open, honest discussion is exactly what we aim to foster in our classrooms. From what we’re hearing from many applicants, those conversations simply aren’t happening in other Middle East Studies programs, which often begin with a rigid ideological framework.
Martin Center: Finally, where do you see your program in the next five to ten years?
Pete Peterson: Five to ten years from now, I hope to measure the program’s success by looking at the careers of our graduates. I fully expect to see them in influential roles—whether in the State Department, intelligence agencies, think tanks, or academia.
I also see this program as a strong launchpad for careers in both academia and the private sector. President Trump’s first overseas trip was to the Middle East, underscoring the region’s importance to U.S. interests. I envision our graduates working for American companies in the region and playing an active role in its economic development.