rheya19

Unfortunately, aspiring graduate students in history do not get to determine what is and isn't off limits when talking about the craft of history, where it is learned, or how it is taught.
It is equally unfortunate that over the past sixty years or so, it's become the received wisdom of the profession that contemporaneous ideological and political views are intertwined with, if not inseparable from, the way institutions and individuals practice the craft. 
So, to answer your question, you might benefit from a masters program that challenges your views. When it's time to apply to a doctoral program, you're going to be competing against applicants who have the demonstrated ability to step outside their comfort zones, don't ask questions so they'll only get answers they want to hear, and have the situational awareness not to take a dismissive tone when addressing emotionally charged issues of the time.

...may constitute harassment under your school's policies, if not also law.

Hi everyone,
Really really appreciate you all taking time and giving me suggestions. Here is an update:
1. I met with the professor - the meeting did not go well obviously. He wasn't angry but visibly upset. I started with - I cannot work all next quarter.. I want to work until January end, because my health.. and then I started telling him my health issues. He did not let me finish my thought. He just cut me off and said "yeah okay, I understand. But what do I do now? What do I do with your students?" I had no response to that. He basically emphasized that this is a big inconvenience to him but he 'understands and will work with me to make sure my health is not compromised'. I said I want to work until January end and then start my 6 week paid leave so that I get paid for the quarter. He said 'it's not going to be possible. And no'. He asked me to stop working after this quarter and not teach at all in January.  He ended things on semi-positive note "you can apply again next year if you are not planning to get pregnant again". I don't know if he was kidding or being mean! 
2. I met with the university's teaching program coordinator. She was extremely helpful and understanding. She let me know my rights again. I told her about my conversation with the professor. She said you should not go on leave to make things easier for the professor and the class. Start your leave when you want to start. Do not go on a guilt-trip. She basically told me to tell the professor - no, but I am going to continue working until Jan end and not quitting like you suggested. She said "what to do once you go on leave is our problems. It is not your problem and you should not get financially penalized for being pregnant." She will let the professor know about what we talked during the meeting and she said she will send him an email telling him that the student will need to decide her leave schedule. The dept will have to worry about the administrative things. She said "prof might not know about this. Men generally dont know". okayyy... 
So now I have about a month to decide whether I want to do what I initially planned - work until January. I am legally allowed to. I have rights, thanks to my amazing TA union. But professor won't like it one bit. So there could be some hostility there. But I am going to think it through and decide what's best - financially, physically and for my mental health. I of course want to earn as much as I can. But at least I have about a month to decide. 
If I have learned anything at all from this experience - know your rights. Talk to people by reaching out. I would have never known about my options if I would not have reached out to the TA union. And if I would have just met with the professor - I would not even have received paid leave. Because that's what he had told me "I cannot pay you since you wont be working". I am just glad I have at least 2 people by my side if professor decides that he doesn't like me anymore because I am too much of a hassle. I understand - I could be a hassle for him, but I really cannot help it. Also, it is easy to advocate for others, but it is tough to advocate for yourself. 
Anyways, thanks everyone again! Really appreciate your time.

First of all, this whole dating undergrads goal you have is a disaster waiting to happen. I'm not saying you are going to intentionally try to have some sort of skewed power dynamic, but that's what you're describing. You have to be very careful about this (and I would say don't do it at all), because you are older, you are in a position of authority over undergraduates, and it's possible that your goals in this relationship would be very damaging to the trust and open communication you should have in a relationship.
 
As well, your assumption that someone who isn't familiar with the "male body" and has some kind of "otherworldly fascination" with all things new and sexual is wrong as well. Many guys I've spoken to have some form of insecurity or jealousy when it comes to sex. Some even go so far as to not date women that have had sex with other people, even after they themselves are not virgins (I guess this is what you're saying?). Now this is completely hypocritical, I hope you realize.
 
It's also not necessary that someone have no experience for them to be attracted to you, to have some kind of childlike wonder (a really creepy term to use in this discussion), or to feel some exciting crush with butterflies in your stomach and all that. I feel that about my boyfriend of 2.5 years, and it's nowhere near the first relationship I've had.
 
"Interestingly, quite a few girls that have been interested in me have been like 180 degrees from that, like having almost exaggeratedly grown-up-womanish features. Grad school for some weird and inexplicable reason seems to attract these sorts of women too--except for the Asians. I know this is extreme stereotyping but it's something I notice, especially when I compare them to the undergrads at the same university.
I also fear that the type I mentioned in the beginning--the ones who find the idea of having a boyfriend almost "mythical", are likely to be hideous and/or have really ugly personalities. In one way it kind of makes sense--why would I be the first guy to like a girl--though on the other hand my lack of dating has had to do with introversion and illness--two things that have nothing to do with my attractiveness per se. A female counterpart of me might have just been late to "get the memo" that people around her had started dating."
1. I can't believe people in grad school (who are generally older) look older than people in undergrad (who are generally younger). It's not extreme stereotyping (except the Asian part), it's just how aging changes your face.
2. This theory you have about finding relationships "mythical" and being "hideous and/or really ugly in their personality" is absolutely wrong. There are many people who are very attractive (in looks and personality, if this is the only requirement) who have not had relationships before. You don't know what experiences they have had, and again you're falling prey to this fallacy that you're so special and no one else has experienced this before. You touch on this point, but you don't seem to recognize that it's completely wrong. As well, people can be unattractive to YOU, while being attractive to others. You can also have a relationship, even if you are unattractive. Your constant talk about women's looks, their inexperience, and how special you want to be to them just reeks of unstable and insecure masculinity.
 
 
"I think I kind of had four things that I listed as important in a partner:
1) Someone who is new to relationships, like myself, and wants a more childlike and playful relationship
2) Someone who is introverted and intellectual, but not a rival/in the same field
3) Someone I find physically and emotionally (in terms of "raw" mannerisms and the like) attractive to me
4) Someone who fits, logistically and practically speaking, into my life."
1. For you two to be compatible, you need not have the same level of experience. If it's a good relationship, it's childlike and playful (if that's what the two people want). You mentioned not wanting to be so professional and serious in your relationship. Well I'm here to tell you that it's possible - relationships are not like going to an academic talk. They're fun, you can laugh and play and run around and go on the swings and act like kids and no one should judge you. Even if you're in a relationship with someone who has been in a relationship before. My most childlike and playful relationship is my current one, technically eight years after my first (middle-school type) relationship and four years after my more serious first relationship.
2. Your concern about the person being a rival shows me that you are still a bit confused about how relationships work. Or you're very insecure about competing with people. Either way, this needs to be dealt with before you get into any kind of relationship. If not, this will all be raising some serious red flags for the people you're dating. If it doesn't raise serious red flags for them, I would be surprised.
3. This is very important. However, you can not limit yourself, and don't think your level of attraction to the person when you first meet will be related to how attracted you are to them later on. Things really change as a relationship develops, and for me the best relationships where my attraction got stronger were never the ones in which I was most attracted to the person at the beginning. Because then you can only go down from there!
4. I agree with this. This is absolutely important as well. I strongly believe that most undergraduates would not meet this.
 
So generally, please, please don't start dating until you've dealt with these personal issues and these dangerous misconceptions about women, relationships, and compatibility. All I see coming out of this if you start dating without facing and eliminating these issues is a dangerously power imbalanced relationship where you unknowingly end up taking advantage of the other person, all the while trying to stay special/important to them. And that will not be good.

From your descriptions, two things come to mind:
1. It sounds like you are saying that you have a really strong need to be important/significant. For example, you feel disoriented when you aren't the foremost expert in your field in the room. You want to be unique/special in a romantic way to a potential partner. Being important / making a difference in a world is a common human need. I feel that your expression of this need is more extreme. Of course, it's your life and your choices, but may I suggest a slightly different perspective? You want your potential partner to have "otherworldly" experiences about you because you want your own experiences reciprocated. But how about another thought: you and your partner can still have "otherworldly" experiences even if the reason for these experiences are completely different. You might be feeling this because it's your first significant relationship and they might be interested in you because you are interesting in other ways! 
2. It also sounds to me like you are saying that your ability to be happy in a relationship depends on how things that should be completely out of your control. You cannot choose how another person feels about you or how they act. It may not be healthy to depend on how others feel in order to gain satisfaction or happiness. From your description, it almost sounds like you are already crafting the "perfect partner" in your head and now you are trying to find people and then you want them to become this idealized perfect partner. I would advise against this. For a scientific analogy, this would be similar to pre-selecting the conclusion/experimental outcome you want ahead of time and then trying to design the perfect experiment that produces the outcome you want! 
This is why many people have continually suggest that you reconsider these impossibly high "standards" you set for a potential partner (and also all the perceived "barriers" you set up for yourself that might not actually exist in reality). You have all these expectations and needs out of life that aren't realistic because they are not things you can choose (e.g. how another person feels) and it's not likely you will be able to both identify someone that meets all of these things without getting to know them more casually first. Also, as you have said before, you are inexperienced. So, you may find what you want/need will change as you gain more experiences.

Lots of good advice, here, I just want to add one other thing, since it hasn't been explicitly said:
If you're a grad student, don't date undergraduates. They may be right for you in some ways, but the potential complications (and legal or ethical issues from your school) are not worth the risk. Take the time to find someone closer to your age that is in a similar position. 
I also think you're maximizing your uniqueness in this area. You don't sound that different than other friends of mine when they started grad school. You are used to setting yourself apart, and you see very clearly where you developed differently or slowly in these areas- I think you're underestimating how many other people they are with unique but parallel trajectories in graduate programs. 

Hi Visualizer,
I am a little confused about what you want. In the first post, you ask "what is the best way" forward and your post title mentions "catching up", but then in recent posts, you say that you don't want to grow quickly. I think it's important for you to consider what the others have said so far, especially the parts that you disagree with. I'm not saying that you have to change everything about yourself suddenly or do a whole bunch of things you are not comfortable with. 
But, growing does mean that you have to be willing and ready to get a little uncomfortable. I think you can and should decide which parts can be uncomfortable. The reason why I said I was confused is not because I don't understand the difference between wanting to grow and "not wanting to grow too quickly". I do see the difference. However, you asked for advice on the "best" way forward and as I said above, growing requires a little bit of discomfort. "Not wanting to grow too quickly" is a subjective term that could mean something different for you than it does for me or another person reading.
I think you have mentioned that you are working with someone to help guide your development. This is good. Have you talked to them about your desire to grow and venture outside of your comfort area? Maybe you could work with your counselor to discuss your worries and concerns about growing and between the two of you, you can identify some specific areas you may be okay with getting uncomfortable. It might even help to come up with some strategies to deal with your discomfort when it comes up. And maybe you want to also come up with an "emergency escape plan" on what to do if you get really uncomfortable. 
The reason I say this is because in your posts here, you have mentioned a lot of things that you must specifically have in order to be happy. It's fine to know what you are happy with. However, it's not realistic or practical or possible to have all of it at once, immediately. So, out of all of these things, what are you most willing to give up, temporarily? Maybe you can then build your next social or romantic relationship without worrying about that one factor and see where it goes. You're not committed to giving up that thing forever. After all, I think most people aged 18-20 also aren't necessarily looking for friends or romantic partners for life, so starting a friendship or romantic relationship with someone doesn't mean that you are compromising your identity or that you have to change your own life forever. I encourage you to continue talking and working with your counselor to find the best strategies moving forward (after all, most of us here aren't properly trained for this!)
P.S. Just to address your comment on "respect". I think that you have that part wrong. You say that there isn't lack of respect, however, you immediately described your former partners in extremely negative ways right after saying you "respected" them. This shows me that you do not really respect your former partners.

@rheya19lol and understanding on the parental front. My parents haven't done comments quite like yours, but they did speculate that I'm asexual because I wasn't dating in high school and have told me that, until I told them I was engaged to a man, they assumed I'd one day come home on a harley with my girlfriend on the back. 
Actually, come to think of it, I have never told them which gender(s) I'm attracted to, so they're probably still taking bets on "how I'll turn out."

I never fell in love until I met my husband, and I was nearing 30 at the time. I spent my 20s traveling, and while I had one or two relationships, mostly it didn't fit my nomadic, expat lifestyle. By the time I was 28, I was living in an East Asian country, and I got weekly questions about why I wasn't married yet. A cab driver even asked me if I hated men. LOL. So, yeah.
Then I decided to come back to the States and go to graduate school, to which my father's only reply was, "... Well, alright. But just be careful. Men don't like a woman who's too smart." (Other Dad-Classics: When he saw me in high heels, "You know, men don't like a woman who's too tall." And staring confused when he saw me lifting weights, ".... ..... .... ..... .....")
I know it's been even harder for my girlfriends in grad school who are black. It's just shitty. But honestly from where I'm standing, you're only 25. You're doing fine. You're doing important work. There are women in solidarity with you, and you are far from being done meeting men. So hold out some hope on that front, but keep doing what you love to do.

I respectfully disagree. The point of political activity is to get something done or to stop something from being done.
A personal appeal to a representative is a tactic that may or may not sway the broader discussion or get a decision maker to change one's mind.
If you center your personal appeals around your status as a graduate student, and your representative and most of his constituents despise academics, what then? If you center your personal appeals around detailed calculations on how the change impacts your bottom line, and your numbers are off, and/or someone counters that as a student you have access to resources and amenities that are publicly funded, what then? If you successfully focus your effort on stopping the initiative to tax tuition waivers have you really won if lawmakers say "okay," and then propose changes to the tax code that impacts your students or your neighbors or your friends? What then? Do you call it a day or do you start again from square one? As a Republican, I am familiar with the MAGA "drain the swamp" Trump supporters. They are using the general Republican opposition to "big government"  as cover for an anti-intellectual vendetta against everyone in the Ivory Tower. It isn't an accident that this measure is on the table. The anger/anguish of those you who are justifiably concerned by the proposed changes is frosting on a cake layered with misogyny, nativism, misogyny, racism, misogyny, religious intolerance, and misogyny.
As someone who writes technical documents for participants in contentious public policy debates, I can point to instances where a NIMBYist approach relying on personal appeals to representatives has carried the day. I can also point to instances where those victories were Pyrrhic. Sometimes individuals get so invested in opposition to X that they overlook the fact that without X, achieving Y becomes more costly and time consuming. I can also point out that in many cases, that NIMBYism is hard to sustain unless the dissenting voices have considerable standing in their communities.
What I am recommending is that individuals choose tactics that serve a strategy aimed at securing an objective (or objectives) that go beyond an individual's immediate concerns and ultimately still address them. I am recommending that individuals find ways to share their experiences that resonate on a one to one basis and information on the long term impact of the changes on a local and national level. "Back of the napkin" examples follow.
I'm a graduate student in STEM. Yes, the change will hurt me in the here and now, and I can handle it. My bigger concern is the impact it will have on our community's ability to develop innovative technologies that can help the economy to grow locally and nationally. You may not be aware of contributions we're making so here they are... I'm a graduate student in the social sciences. Yes, the change will hurt me in the here and now, and I can handle it. My bigger concern that our community, like America, has a number of issues that the government cannot solve on its own. I would like to bring to your attention how my work is improving the understanding of these issues and potential solutions.  Some of these solutions can be implemented locally, others through private-public partnerships on a state or national level. All of these solutions will empower residents of our immediate community.. I'm a graduate student in the humanities. Yes,  the change will hurt me badly in the here and now. I will do my best to handle it. My bigger concern is that the centuries' old argument over the optimal nature of American civilization is tearing the country apart. If we don't change the way we talk to each other,  we will compromise our ability to address the issues of the day and challenges, know and unknown, that we'll soon face. As researchers and educators, the work we do is materially contributing to the restoration of civility in American every day life. Here's how... My $0.02.

I signed up to Grad Cafe just so I can respond to this thread. I'm no longer a PhD student. I finished my studies 4 years ago, so it's not going to impact me directly. But since I was a PhD student living from a stipend not long ago, and I know I wouldn't have made it if I had to pay the extra tax, it feels very close to home for me.
First, let me be clear: this is not a speculation. The current draft for HR.1 specifically retracts section 117(b) of the IRS tax code. I've read the draft text myself. It's there in the draft. It is true that a draft can still change, but there are some reasons I'm really not optimistic about this:
1. They have been working on this draft for a long time before they posted it. It's not an early draft.
2. They plan to rush this bill through the house and senate so it would pass before the end of the year. The republicans really feel like they need a "win" right now, and for them passing the tax reform is just the kind of "win" they need.
3. In order to pass this as a reconciliation bill in the senate without getting filibustered, it must not increase the deficit by more than 1.5 trillion dollars. Right now, they need to remove more deductions to get to this target. Which makes it less likely they would change this.
4. And most importantly: PhD students are relatively small and insignificant group. They don't have a strong lobby protecting their interests, and compared to the group trying to push back against cancelling the deductions for state and local taxes, they're last in line. Case in point: check news stories about the tax reform. How many headlines have you seen about this story?
 
And the impact is huge. As someone here mentioned, tuition reduction is qualified if this is a qualified institution, and the graduate student performs teaching or research activities for the educational institution. But this is the situation for most PhD students who receive full funding from the university. I checked the numbers based on the stipend I got, and it looks like if it would pass, it would've reduced my post-tax monthly stipend from 1800$ a month to 1150$ a month.
But all is not lost. I'm not writing this to discourage you but to encourage you to take action. Just like someone in the white house twitted not long ago: DO SOMETHING. Call your senator. Post about it in your social network. Create memes. Get other grad students and grad candidate to act. Get more people to be aware of this issue. Don't just assume this would change because someone else is going to take care of this for you. Otherwise, this is going to impact not just your pockets, but also higher ed and research in general.
 

Repeat after me: my cohort isn't my only source of social engagement.
Go join a college club team, take up a hobby, or just go to the campus bar. There is a world beyond your lab!

I'm not saying that a PhD in public policy is uninformative. You yourself have set up an axis of comparison between the PhD in public policy and your master's in economics. I'm telling you that you're disappointed because you are expecting a public policy degree to be an economics degree by another name. The academic study of public policy is very valuable and can produce incredible specialists with top skills for both research and implementation, but its scope is much wider than economic analysis. If you want to exclusively focus on economic analysis, you should be getting a PhD in economics. I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive about the strengths of public policy when you seem to have no appreciation for any of the non-economic perspectives or skills that your program is teaching you.
Finally, it does seem from your responses like you didn't research your program or what a PhD is in general. A PhD is not about the classes. If the classes are easy, good for you - you can start on your research. Between you and me, you should probably also get a full-time job in some kind of policy outfit, because you'll be grateful for the work experience and network more than you are for your piece of paper. I don't necessarily agree that you think you're too smart for grad school, but I do think it's rather myopic of you to lord your economic background over a non-economics program. An economist coming into a policy program is obviously going to know the economics at a high level, just as a swimmer who starts training for a triathlon is already going to know how to swim. This should not have been a revelation for you. If you want to lord your economic background over the hoi polloi, you should consider switching back to the economics track - but keep in mind that there you will be competing with other economists instead of picking on the history majors.

It most definitely falls under Title IX in the USA. This is 100% something where you should consult with a number of offices on campus: women's center; human resources; ombudsmen; and equity/inclusion are the first offices which come to mind for me. I'm sorry you're in such an awful situation.

I am so sorry to hear your situation. Not every pregnant woman can work till delivery, so it is uncaring and discriminating of him to think you "belong to" him and make you teach classes when you don't feel well. Some adjustments need to be made given your circumstances. Are there any equity offices in your school? There should be one in most universities. If not, how about you raise it to the graduate research school with supporting documents of your pregnancy? Your welfare should be better taken care of. I don't know how it works at your institute, but my uni offers maternity leave for up to 6 months, and scholarship to any PhD students who fall pregnant during their studies. I have not seen any PhD students got pregnant in my department though, but these policies are in place to ensure good welfare. Your health is the priority and you should not compromise with him if you cannot. 
Have you spoken to your doctor about your anemia? Iron supplement can be helpful for your case. Being anemic is just not good for your baby! 

I think this would fall under Title IX. I would reach out to any relevant departments (my undergrad had an active women's center) and ask for advice about how to proceed. Doing so means that your actions will be somewhere in writing. 

France has issues with harassment - there's no other way of putting it. I don't think WOC are especially targeted though - I am ethnically French and used to speak the language fluently, but was the target of some pretty brutal harassment/assault. 
Try to travel in groups when talking the streets. Don't engage when strangers try and talk to you - keep on walking and ignore them. Don't smile on the train or walking the streets because someone could take that as license to harass you. Don't catch public transport very early in the morning or very late at night. Read up in advance to see what parts of the city are unsafe - I was spending time with a Moroccan-French friend who has lived in Paris most of his life, and there was an area of Paris where he wouldn't let us walk - we had to run when going through it. 

Yes, while nothing is certain yet, now is the right time to start calling your representatives to tell them to oppose this bill and tell them your personal story of how it will affect you personally. Unlike academic arguments which are often constructed as unbiased, dispassionate and impersonal ideas, the best way to engage with your politician is to tell personal anecdotes! At the same time, if you are already a graduate student put pressure on your school to oppose this bill because it's something that hurts them as much as it will hurt you.
Definitely not a reason to panic yet. But a good time to start doing something!

I got an A on that paper. Phew.
One month left to this semester. Anyone wanting to chat about their experience as a first-year graduate student? 

Ah, yes, the good old first year "I'm too smart for this." Spoilers: you're not. And if you don't think your program is well regarded, why did you not consider that before accepting? Did you not get into anyplace better? How do you mesh that with your perceived intellectual superiority?
Classes are interesting but not where you should be spending most of your effort; easy classes mean there's more time for you to focus on other work. This is particularly true if you have an MA, as first-semester PhD work is often designed to get everyone on the same page.
Get over yourself, buckle down, and work to make your time productive.

We're in different fields, but I say this to everyone considering academia/professorship as a career: What else could you do with a PhD in your field? The reality is that very few (less than 5% in some cases, less than 20% in others) PhD graduates end up with permanent positions at a University. However, depending on your interests and your field, there could be lots of good opportunities for PhDs in other sectors. 
Personally, I knew that academia was the right call for me when I researched all of the career paths I could want and almost all of them either required a PhD, or you would have a big advantage if you had a PhD. Some career paths in Canada that required MA/MSc seemed to be mostly hiring PhDs too (due to the overflow of PhDs). And finally, I found some PhD programs that provided a decent salary, benefits so that I was not going into debt or paying too much "opportunity cost" to pursue the PhD. 
I see that your sidebar info says you're in Canada, where Masters programs tend to be more meaningful than masters in the US. Not sure if your field follows the same format, but in Canada, my field generally wants you to do a Masters first then a 3-4 year PhD. So I decided to use the Masters program as a test to see if I would enjoy it. Academia is a lot more than just coursework! I really enjoyed my Masters program so I applied to PhD programs in the 2nd year of my Masters. However, my field was very small in Canada back in 2011/2012, so I applied to US PhD programs. 
My partner and I also have the goal of settling down eventually near our families in Canada, so we were also concerned about the nomadic nature of academic careers. In addition to the good salary/benefits above, we also decided that the PhD program needs to be a very good one to maximize the chances of getting to live where we want. So I ended up applying to only the top tier programs that also paid well. My reasoning was that it's better to just leave the academic path now (with a Canadian Masters) instead of spending 10+ years in grad school and postdocs until giving up anyways. Note: It's certainly not true that you must be at a top tier program to get a job, but we wanted to maximize our chances or it might not be worth the risk. In the end, I did the top tier PhD program (but since it was in the USA, I started grad school over again, so it took 5 years to do the US PhD). We did a similar thing for postdoc positions and luckily ended up in a perfect location. So, it's working out so far. Still don't know if I will be a professor one day but I do feel that my PhD and my experience will allow me to find something I like in this geographical area!

Serious question: What do you think the students do upon receiving your paper full of comments and red lines? Do you think they learn anything at all from all those comments or that they are demoralized and/or confused about how best to proceed? My recommendation is that you NOT focus on grammatical errors and correcting those. That's editorial work. Maybe do it for a page or two but don't let that be the vast majority of your comments because that makes it too easy for students to focus on those and not the bigger errors in their writing.
This Youtube video has really good tips on giving writing feedback. Right now, you're doing the mechanical things PLUS trying to do the other things. If you actually want to help students improve their writing, you'll want to give what he calls global feedback. You also want to do more than just identify issues but move to suggesting solutions or identifying the rhetorical options for them. 

You've been hired to do a job. You've been given definitive guidance on how to do the work. You've not been hired to have a patronizing attitude towards your professor or the students or to fix what is "wrong" with college today.
I think that you would serve your own interests well to stay in your lane and to avoid thinking that you know how your boss should do the job better than he/she does, especially if such thoughts get you in the "I don't want to go over the professor's head" neighborhood. These kinds of thoughts have ways of manifesting themselves in ways that will not benefit you.
Down the line, when you are a professor, you can run the class your way (and supervise TAs who know better than you).
As for your writing abilities relative to your students, if you received the above paragraph from one of them, what corrections would you make? (Subject verb agreement? Verb tenses? Run on sentences? Poorly organized argument?) 

@Sigaba You seem to have taken the first sentence of her post out of context; I think the rest of the post makes it clear what she means something different than you've responded to. When she says "people of color are underrepresented in history," she meant "people of color are underrepresented in history" as its practitioners. I don't see anywhere in her post that she claims that race is "under-represented" as an object of study in history. Rather, the statistics she cites show that she is talking about diversity in the demographics of professional academics, not in the distribution of the topics they study.