Please let me know if you know how you deal with a corrupted mentality.

Documentary Books series: Collective Injustice

Fifteenth Book Title:

SJSU: The Four Months of Hellfire (Jan. To 1st week of June

2017)

Story Subtitle: SJSU used Snail to kill my student Jindal’s ambition and innovative work.

Seneca the Elder said, “It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity." Here I share my tragedy and suffering for four months or more of hellfire at San Jose State University (SJSU). They have represented an actual killing to me as a professor who had undergone a heart transplant. All the misfortunes happened in the spring of 2017, especially since my first pension from work at the end of May 2017. Despite the objection of the medical team to shorten the duration of the recovery needed for heart transplant, I was forced to return to university in a wheelchair, and then all the catastrophes began. They deprived me of my job, financial benefits, and due support. They gave me many unjustified assignments to make me fail on purpose. As a result, I experienced four months and a half of hellfire (from the final week of January 2017 to the first week of June 2017). If you are interested in knowing more about my tragedy, please get in touch with me at (http://drfayad.com), and don't hesitate to contact me at ([email protected]) to get the extended stories with much evidence within this volume. The delay in doing the website caused a lot of losses because “Amazon Publishing Pro” did not HONOR THE CONTRACT SIGNED ON APRIL 14, 2023, and participating in the Collective Injustice.

Contact information

AEEH PRESS INC.

P.O. Box 21514

San Jose, CA 95151, USA

Phone: 650-304-1543

Landline Phone and Fax – 408-984-3886

www.drfayad.com

To all the business, art, science, and engineering communities and all academics, partitioners, and students of science and engineering:

The work (of Unified Business Rule Standards (UBRS) done in Jindal's thesis under my supervision is precious for all business and engineering for all the legal parties (individual, organization, country, and political parties)

The current business environment's ever-changing market dynamics, like evolving user needs, faults, intrusions, etc., require constant updates to system behavior and resource availability. These changes, however, should be performed without significantly affecting the application structure, thus allowing the system to effortlessly optimize and tune itself at runtime to handle/manage any issues. Business rules are an effective tool to provide flexibility and control for rapidly deploying changes across business operations. However, most organizations still need help to explicitly define or model business rules, primarily because they lack a global and widely acceptable set of standards. Furthermore, current business rule standards are not flexible and adaptable for defining rules that can apply to any other application except the ones they are designed for. Such problem dependencies in traditional standards make them challenging to evolve and, hence, significantly limit their use. The Unified Business Rule Standard (UBRS) eliminates these dependencies by focusing on the core knowledge of the domain. It effectively means the changes can be carried out to the problem-specific components without affecting the core functionality. In other words, updating the business logic can occur without recompiling the application code.

All the individuals who participated in the rejection of this work played ugly roles of rejecting my student's work, which we are open for debate with the top people in this area and all administrative authority and faculty at SJSU. My student's work (Unified Business Rule Standards (UBRS)) is the invention and innovation of the most needed.

My student's work will be published and developed as a Unified Business Rules Engine, which is in high demand for business rules for any field of knowledge.

By The Way, my student published several papers on his work.

Chapter 09:

Jindal, the Victim

Case History: Siddharth Jindal (The victim & author)

Part of Volume (1) and Extended in Volume (15) with evidence.

In January 2013, I joined San Jose State University (SJSU), California, as an international graduate student after being transferred from California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB). I enrolled in the Software Engineering (SE) department under the Computer Engineering (CMPE) department. All students were required to complete nine units of degree core courses, six units of required specialization courses, nine units of elective courses to fulfill the graduation requirements for MS-SE.and six units of culminating experience. Through either one of the three following options:

1. Master's Thesis (Part A and Part B: three credits each)

2. Master's Project (Part A and Part B: three credits each)

3. Comprehensive Exam (5 credit courses plus one credit exam) I had always intended to do quality research in my field and eventually earn a Ph.D. Due to this motivation, I decided to start early and do a thesis for my Master's degree. While I was fortunate to find a great advisor for my thesis with little effort, my every interaction with the department and the university after that has been nothing less than unfortunate and distressful. I enrolled for my thesis, Part A, in the fall of 2014 and passed it with a credit (CR). During the semester, I constantly connected with my advisor, the department chair, and the graduate advisor through emails and in-person office meetings. Having passed Part A, I enrolled for Thesis—Part B in the spring of 2015, after which I started having all the troubles. First, I was never told about the requirement of forming a thesis committee by the Part A and Part B course instructors, Dr. Lee Chang and Dr. Donald Hung, respectively. After eventually becoming aware, I met and emailed all the professors in the department, requesting that they be on my committee. However, I was made to struggle to form the committee, as none of the professors agreed to be on it for no apparent reason. I had to look beyond the department, and I was lucky to convince an MBA professor and a new part-time lecturer in the CMPE department. After eventually forming the committee and following all the procedures I knew, I submitted my thesis to the committee for review. Following the review, I gave my defense exam on May 6, 2015. My thesis was approved, and I passed my defense on the first attempt, which was followed by submitting the thesis to the Graduate Studies and Research (GSR) office for final syntactical review, publication, and indexing. However, after submitting it to the GSR office, I started

This requirement has been revised, effective in spring 2014. Dr. M. E. Fayad, Thesis Advisor and Committee Chair, and Dr. Lee Chang, Department Chair. It was replaced by interim chair Dr. Donald Hung in the spring of 2015. Prof. Daniel Harkey, Director and Graduate Advisor, Software Engineering Department Dr. David Czerwinski, Ph.D., from Stanford University, is a member of the Thesis Committee. Dr. Hungwen Li, Ph.D., from the University of Pittsburgh, is a member of the Thesis Committee. I need help getting it approved by them. My thesis was rejected on three consecutive attempts. March 2015, July 2015, and November 2015. It was rejected by the GSR office each time, citing language issues. I made the suggested changes every time, including (but not limited to) a thorough review using Criterion software (provided by ETS and recommended by GSR), a personal review by the department graduate advisor, and two professional editors I hired, not forgetting the three Ph.D. professors on my committee. However, on resubmission, I received arbitrary feedback each time without a proper guideline. After the first rejection, I also personally met the associate. I was told to work with my advisor, and they could not help me with this issue. It was further appalling to notice that things pointed out as errors in the first rejection and subsequently corrected in the second submission were again marked as errors in the third submission, and vice versa. As no clear guidelines were provided either on the GSR website or the department website, it left me wondering what I was required to do to complete the thesis publication process. I, therefore, sought guidance from the CMPE department chair and the graduate advisor after each rejection. Still, I never got any definite solution or direction, apart from being told to re-enroll for extra credits to maintain my VISA status. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that, at the department's request, I even extensively helped two other students who submitted their theses in the Fall 2015 semester from my department. Both were accepted without issues in the first attempt, with one of them even being felicitated with a gold medal.

Moreover, upon examining their GSR-reviewed and annotated theses, I figured that even after having extensive errors, a vast majority of which were precisely similar to what I had in my work, their theses were accepted. Due to the apparent issues with the thesis submission process and a clear bias, I filed a petition after the second rejection with the Student Fairness Committee (SFC) under the University Ombudsperson's office in August 2015. The SFC, after conducting a thorough investigation, subsequently adjudged the case in my favor in January 2016 and noted the following, among other observations:

1. The student should be reimbursed for fees paid for CMPE 298 in fall 2015.

2. At a minimum, the Associate Dean, Department Chair, and Thesis Advisor should meet with GUP representatives to discuss the feedback provided to this student, define an appropriate level of support, clarify requirements, and establish thesis guidelines.

3. If the choice of thesis is not routine for this department, care must be taken to ensure adequate faculty resources to review these, so they have a better chance of being approved by GSR. Otherwise, the department should advise students considering choosing the thesis option about resource limitations in providing appropriate oversight. The SFC above verdict and my attempts to contact the provost forced the AVP GUP8, which oversees the GSR office, to contact me. She advised me to work with

Dr. David Bruck, Associate Dean (Graduate Studies and Research), Dr. Thalia Anagnos, AVP (Graduate and Undergraduate Programs), three advisors, and the thesis committee were committed to reviewing my revised thesis and approve the changes a fourth time. As per her advice, I once again thoroughly revised it and requested that they accept it, as the deadline for publication was still a week away. However, I was stonewalled, citing time constraints and procedures. When I asked for an appointment, she forced me to meet her only in the presence of Dr. David Bruck, even after I let her know about my discomfort with him being present in the same room. On the day of the meeting, I was welcomed by both of them with a very rude and unprofessional interaction. Although I was ready to present facts with documents in my possession, I was never given a chance to open my folder. I was immediately given the following two options and asked to make a decision based on them. It is important here to note that the options provided completely ignored the SFC recommendations, except for the fee refund:

1. Turn the thesis into a project (only on papers) and graduate in Fall 2015.

2. Hire a professional editor and resubmit the thesis in spring 2016, which, if approved, will result in a spring 2016 graduation. After carefully considering my professional state and VISA status, I could not see a way out other than to accept the first option, i.e., to convert my thesis into a project. At this point, I also want to highlight that Option 2 had no real merit. Because of the following reasons:

1. It violated the SFC decision, which already nullified my enrollment for the Fall 2015 semester. Thesis resubmission would have necessitated enrollment in the spring 2016 semester.

2. The SFC decision was based on the second rejection, and it asked the department to resolve the issues and guide me with a proper submission before the third submission, which GSR can accept. The GUP office and my department denied having any such interaction, and instead, I was asked to hire a professional yet again.

3. I received a "Report in Progress (RP) grade in two consecutive semesters. Apart from running the risk of an incomplete (I) grade being awarded, a continuous RP for three semesters would have ruined my academic and professional transcripts.

4. Despite repeated attempts, I was given no assurance or confidence that resubmitting it a fourth time would help me finally get it approved for publication. As a student new to the American education system, I had done my best to keep abreast of all the rules of the department and the university. I do not know what else I could have done except research department websites and contacting my professors and the GSR office. Amusingly, other students submitting their theses were sent to me for guidance on the same thing my thesis was rejected for. It proves that even the department was not aware of all the guidelines and needed more adequate resources to cater to the academic needs of graduate students, nor was the GSR helpful and forthcoming enough. Moreover, apart from my situation that forced me to accept graduation by converting my thesis into a project, I feel cheated and discredited for all the hard work I had put in for the two years it took me to complete that research. I felt disowned by the university, as I found it agonizingly tricky even to get an appointment with the concerned people. A glaring example of this fact is that, after running out of options to get my issues heard, I filed an official complaint with the Office of Equal Opportunity and Employee Relations. The response to my complaint is patronizing and disparaging. The said office investigated by handing my thesis over to those I had filed the complaint against for reevaluation. Not surprisingly, they again concluded that my thesis language was colloquial, even after three experienced Ph.D. professors had reviewed and approved it. Here, I had papers already published in leading journals and IEEE conferences, apart from being accepted by CRC Press to publish a book on my thesis. It should be enough evidence to establish my capability to produce high-quality technical writing in line with industry standards. I was consequently awarded an MS degree in May 2016, but my thesis was dated May 2015, mentioning a project instead of a thesis. This matter has hugely jeopardized my career. Following the second rejection of my thesis, I was so emotionally distressed that I could not concentrate on my job and was eventually asked to leave. Further, I lost the book contract for which my thesis was supposed to be the foundation stone. Even academically, I lost big time on my Ph.D. plans, as a Master's thesis would have gone a long way in getting me admission to a good university. Owing to the yearlong delay in awarding my degree and the corresponding stress and state of uncertainty, I could not land any other job offer. Apart from the financial and academic losses, I could not even extend my stay in the USA because of the visa restrictions and was forced to return in August 2016. Although it may seem trivial, I missed a big event like my graduation ceremony because of all this confusion. Therefore, it is no surprise that I faced crushing challenges academically, emotionally, and financially.