Q: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
File photo: A supporter of Israel argues with pro-Palestinian demonstrators at an "Israel Inspires" rally on the campus of Rutgers University in Piscataway, N.J., Oct. 9, 2003. 
  
 An investigation into an allegedly anti-Semitic incident at Rutgers University is being reopened by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. 
  
 To really understand Israel and the Jewish world - subscribe to Haaretz 
  
 Kenneth Marcus, the department’s new assistant secretary for civil rights, wrote in a letter last month that a pro-Palestinian event at the New Jersey state school in January 2011 may have discriminated against Jewish students by charging them admission while allowing others in for free. 
  
 The new investigation, responding to a complaint originally made by the Zionist Organization of America in 2011, will also look into whether students at the university currently experience anti-Semitism. 
  
 In reopening the Rutgers probe, Marcus employed the State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism, which includes some types of anti-Israel activity, like holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions. The definition was composed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. 
  
 Susan Tuchman, director of the ZOA’s Center for Law and Justice, sees that as an important precedent. 
  
 “OCR for the first time is going to be using the State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism when it is accepting and deciding Title VI cases,” Tuchman told JTA on Friday. “It’s important because that State Department definition recognizes that some anti-Israelism and anti-Zionism crosses the line into anti-Semitism.” 
  
 Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter Email * Please enter a valid email address Sign up Please wait… Thank you for signing up. We've got more newsletters we think you'll find interesting. Click here Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later. Try again Thank you, The email address you have provided is already registered. Close 
  
 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on national origin. 
  
 The investigation stems from a ZOA complaint filed in 2011 alleging that organizers’ actions at the pro-Palestinian event that year at Rutgers constituted anti-Semitism, and that Jewish students’ civil rights were violated because the school did not appropriately address the anti-Semitism. The complaint also alleged that Jewish students were harassed and physically threatened on other occasions. 
  
 In 2014, the Office for Civil Rights dismissed the complaint, and until last week did not respond to an appeal filed shortly afterward by ZOA. But on Aug. 27, Marcus reopened the investigation into the event. 
  
 The event in question was sponsored by Belief Awareness Knowledge and Action, a pro-Palestinian group, and was called “Never Again for Anyone.” It sought to expand the Holocaust remembrance slogan to also refer to other offenses, including Israeli abuses of the Palestinians. At a certain point, organizers began charging a $5 admission fee. 
  
 According to ZOA, the event was advertised as free and open to the public, but organizers began charging Jewish students $5 after a large group of them showed up. ZOA pointed to an email sent by an event organizer saying that “We need to start charging because 150 Zionists just showed up!” but that “if someone looks like a supporter, they can get in for free.” 
  
 The Office for Civil Rights initially did not consider the email as evidence because it had been redacted, so it dismissed the complaint. In a 2014 letter, it said there was no evidence that only Jews were charged admission, or that others got in for free unfairly. 
  
 “OCR did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate that any individuals were treated differently, based on national origin, with respect to imposition of the admission fee,” read a 2014 letter from the office to ZOA. 
  
 Palestine Legal, a group that advocates on behalf of pro-Palestinian students, said in a 2014 statement that the ruling that year from the Office of Civil Rights, in addition to dismissals of three similar complaints at other schools, showed that pro-Palestinian activism was a legitimate exercise of free speech. 
  
 “The rulings on all four complaints confirms the obvious – that political activity advocating for Palestinian human rights does not violate the civil rights of Jewish students who find such criticism offensive, and that, to the contrary, colleges and universities have an obligation to create an environment that supports freedom of expression,” the statement said. 
  
 But Marcus wrote that the student’s email from the 2011 event should be considered, and that it may point to discrimination against Jewish students. 
  
 “In other words, the visual perception of a group of ‘150 Zionists’ referenced in the email could have been rooted in a perception of Jewish ancestry or ethnic characteristics common to the group,” Marcus wrote, adding that it was unlikely organizers polled each of the 150 entrants on their views regarding Israel. “In cases such as this, it is important to determine whether terms such as ‘Zionist’ are actually code for ‘Jewish.’” 
  
 The letter also noted that some students who reported being charged had a Jewish appearance (like wearing a yarmulke, for example). 
  
 Marcus wrote that due to these considerations, the office was reopening the investigation into whether the event was anti-Semitic. The investigation will focus only on evidence already collected, so former students will not be interviewed again. 
  
 “With respect to reassessing the record, that’s the record, and I don’t believe we can add anything to that,” Tuchman said. 
  
 The renewed investigation comes some three months after Marcus was confirmed to his position by the Senate. 
  
 Before taking the position, Marcus was at the forefront of efforts to combat Israel boycotts on campus and anti-Semitic harassment through enforcement of civil rights powers. ZOA, Hillel International and other Jewish organizations supported his nomination, though women’s rights groups including the National Council of Jewish Women opposed the choice because Marcus supported rolling back Obama-era guidelines on how colleges should handle sexual assault. 
  
 Pro-Palestinian groups, meanwhile, warned that Marcus would wield the law to silence criticism of Israel on campus. ||||| An Education Department official said the agency would adopt the “working definition” of anti-Semitism that is “widely used by governmental agencies." | File Photo/POLITICO Trump administration adopts new definition of anti-Semitism in schools 
  
 The Trump administration is changing how the Education Department investigates allegations of discrimination against Jewish students, backing an approach that is favored by pro-Israel groups but that critics worry will stifle free speech and criticism of Israel on campus. 
  
 The policy change was outlined in a letter last month by Kenneth Marcus, who leads the department’s Office for Civil Rights, in which he re-opened a 2011 investigation into Rutgers University in connection with alleged discrimination against Jewish students. The letter was obtained by POLITICO. 
  
 Story Continued Below 
  
 Marcus wrote in the letter that the Education Department, in its investigations into discrimination, would use the “working definition” of anti-Semitism that is “widely used by governmental agencies” including the State Department. 
  
 That definition includes examples in which delegitimizing Israel, or holding it to a double standard not expected of other democratic nations, are deemed anti-Semitic. 
  
 That meant the Office for Civil Rights for the first time was using a definition of anti-Semitism that some Jewish activists have long sought as a tool to curb discrimination on campuses. But some civil liberties organizations and advocates for Palestinian rights believe that the definition is so broad that it would label criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. 
  
 Education Department spokeswoman Liz Hill denied that the administration had made a change. “The Department has not adopted a definition of anti-Semitism,” Hill said in an email. 
  
 “Secretary DeVos has made clear that OCR will look at the specific facts of each case and make determinations accordingly,” she added. “The facts in the Rutgers case, many of which were disregarded by the previous administration, are troubling.” 
  
 Morning Education A daily dose of education policy news — weekday mornings, in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. 
  
 Marcus’ letter re-opening the Rutgers case, which the Obama administration closed in 2014 citing insufficient evidence of discrimination, says that department will now reevaluate the evidence “in light of the definition of anti-Semitism.” 
  
 Investigators will seek to determine, Marcus wrote, “whether a hostile environment on the basis of national origin or race existed at the University for students of actual or perceived Jewish ancestry or ethnic characteristics.” 
  
 The adoption of the anti-Semitism definition at the Education Department, headed by Secretary Betsy DeVos, comes as Congress has debated the issue over the past several years. 
  
 In 2016, the Senate overwhelmingly passed bipartisan legislation that would have forced the department to use the State Department definition in evaluating discrimination complaints. But the bill hit a snag in the House over concerns that it could interfere with students’ free speech rights. 
  
 The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill earlier this year, but the legislation so far hasn’t gone anywhere in this Congress. 
  
 Several civil liberties and free speech groups — including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and PEN America — have opposed the legislation. They argue that the definition of anti-Semitism is too broad and would threaten political speech, such as criticism of Israel policy, on college campuses. 
  
 “It’s certainly something that we feared would happen,” said Dima Khalidi, director of Palestine Legal, adding that the new definition “opens the door to equate any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.” 
  
 Khalidi also criticized the Education Department for adopting the definition “without any process or public input.” 
  
 Several pro-Israel groups, meanwhile, including the American Jewish Committee, praised the Trump administration’s move. The Zionist Organization of America, which filed the original complaint against Rutgers and appealed, praised the Education Department’s “landmark” decision to adopt the definition. 
  
 “Hate groups like Students for Justice in Palestine try to convince others that their attacks on Zionism and Israel are legitimate political discourse,” two of the group’s leaders said in a statement. “But as the State Department definition of anti-Semitism recognizes, these attacks are often a mask for Jew-hatred, plain and simple.” 
  
 The policy change has long been a priority for Marcus, who was confirmed as the head of the Office for Civil Rights in June. He previously was a staunch proponent of adopting a definition of anti-Semitism as president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. 
  
 Marcus wrote in a 2017 POLITICO column that the Education Department's civil rights office was “ill-equipped to recognize anti-Semitism when it sees it” because it lacks a definition for it. “Absent a definition, the office is stymied by anti-Semitism cases and is failing in its mission to protect Jewish students,” he wrote. 
  
 In response to pressure from Marcus and others, the Obama administration’s Office for Civil Rights outlined in 2013 what it believed was actionable discrimination against Jewish students. 
  
 The Education Department at the time wrote a letter that emphasized a distinction between anti-Semitism and political views about Israel. It said that “OCR is careful to differentiate between harassment based on an individual’s real or perceived national origin, which is prohibited by Title VI, as compared to offensive conduct based on an individual’s support for, or opposition to, the policies of a particular nation, which is not.” 
  
  |||||
A:
In a move the New York Times says supports a "hotly contested definition of anti-Semitism," the Department of Education has announced it's vacating a 2014 ruling by the Obama administration and reopening a case against Rutgers University brought by a conservative Zionist group. The case, per Haaretz, involves a 2011 pro-Palestinian rally held at Rutgers that brought claims the event discriminated against Jewish students by charging them a fee while others entered for free. The previous administration found there was no civil rights violation, but in an Aug. 27 letter to the Zionist Organization of America, Kenneth L. Marcus, a pro-Israel advocate who heads up the DOE's Office for Civil Rights, noted the fresh look at the case would reframe the cause as one of ethnic discrimination, not religious freedom, and stand behind an expanded definition of anti-Semitism used by the State Department. The ZOA calls the DOE's move a "groundbreaking decision." "It took a leader like Kenneth Marcus to finally decide the ZOA's appeal and to also make it clear that OCR will finally be using a definition of anti-Semitism that makes sense," the group said in a statement, per the Times. But Palestinian and human rights groups say this more pro-Israel stance could lead to targeting Zionism opponents. "It's certainly something that we feared would happen," the director of Palestine Legal notes of the expanded definition, which she says "opens the door to equate any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism," per Politico. The Times notes the DOE's decision to reassess the Zionist group's claims comes after the Trump administration moved the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, as well as announced the shuttering of the Palestine Liberation Organization's DC office.