What might Professor Post be implying about the administration's response to his calls for investigation?

The choice that suggests the administration is resistant to accountability aligns well with the context of Professor Post's calls for investigation. When a situation demands scrutiny or oversight, a response that reflects resistance to accountability indicates a lack of willingness to address concerns or take responsibility for actions.

This resistance could manifest in various ways, such as dismissing requests for investigations, ignoring the need for transparency, or failing to engage with individuals seeking to ensure ethical and responsible practices. The implication here is that the administration may be attempting to avoid scrutiny or uphold the status quo rather than addressing potential issues raised by Professor Post.

In contrast, the other options imply positive actions or characteristics, such as prioritizing transparency, support for scientific inquiry, or eagerness to comply with research guidelines, which would reflect a proactive stance towards accountability and investigation. These would not adequately capture an implication of resistance, thus reinforcing why the correct interpretation leans towards the notion of resistance to accountability.