If Faculty Champion Transparency, then Administrators Are the Ones Who Enable It

Sabrina Brown, Director of Graduate Recruitment at the University of North Carolina - Charlotte, and Christopher Connor, Vice Provost for Enrollment Management at the University at Buffalo

It should be clear enough by now that higher education transparency is never accidental. Involuntary disclosure may be, but active transparency is not. It is rather the result of a conscious, purposeful effort made by the people who shape a university’s intellectual and operational framework, backed by an unwavering commitment an institution's integrity and accountability. In the last few years, transparency has been veiled by theoretical language and primarily discussed by faculty—those who, through course design and mentorship, break down walls of confusion to make room for a clearer view of the academic journey. Yet real institutional transparency requires quieter, less visible transparency practices. This is where administrators come in: only university administrators' choices and systems make accessibility and clarity possible; admins are, in essence, higher education’s transparency enablers.

The role of the administrator who concerns herself with transparency is not simple, nor is it straightforward. It requires a proactively and constantly shifting view of student and institutional needs, and the ability to create pathways of information through an institution’s communications, technology, policy, and even culture. As universities globally undergo profound changes these very days, it is most often administrators who must respond to students first.

Consider Sabrina Brown at the University of South Carolina at Charlotte. Across admissions, Brown’s attention is fixed on the friction points that can confuse, deter, or disadvantage. She meets the rising complexity of admissions cycles not with platitudes but with dialogue-based initiatives that clarify requirements, demystify aid, and centralize the information students and their families need most. Her approach is methodical and human-focused; she is highly conscious of the consequences that opaqueness can have for those least equipped to push back, and her focus on conversations with students and feedback set her apart from institutions entirely reliant on data to inform. 

Similarly, Christopher Connor at the University at Buffalo understands that stakeholder trust in an institution is directly connected to how it manages and shares information. Under his guidance, the university doesn’t just compile outcome data—it publishes robust, accessible reports on employment, salaries, and career trajectories. For Connor, transparency is not a “best practice,” but a duty to students and families navigating high-stakes decisions, not only leading up to their first step on campus, but al the way through — and even after. Even as regulations and funding models shift, he models a commitment to openness through accessible documentation and a concentration on outcomes.

Brown and Connor demonstrate how transparency practices are part of the overall discipline of caring for students, including ensuring that what students think they know is real and accurate. They confront the historic tendency of some universities to obscure or overcomplicate information, insisting instead that information about costs, programs, and futures are delivered to students through fully accessible—and often personal—engagement.

Much of this work unfolds amid constraints—political, technological, fiscal, regulatory. Decisions are tempered by the risks of misunderstanding, misappropriation, or reputational harm. In practice, the process is iterative: systems are built, tested, and refined; feedback is collected and absorbed into continuous revision. Brown and Connor both represent that rare blend of tenacity and adaptability, of holding themselves--as part of an institution--accountable, while holding space for student voices amid the contingencies and gaps present in our sector-wide flux.

Their leadership makes clear that transparency is about shaping practices so that information is not only available, but genuinely usable by students, families, faculty, and external partners. The distinction matters, especially as universities navigate new expectations around cost, value, access, and institutional outcomes.

As global higher education stands at a crossroads marked by pressure and transition, the administrator’s work becomes ever more important. They do not simply support whatever transparency goals faculty may have; they construct the conditions under which those goals are even possible. They build the systems and they set the expectations. They negotiate between the competing demands of compliance, reputation, privacy, and fairness. For students and families, transparency is felt in the certainty of an admissions process, the clarity of an aid package, or the reliability of post-graduation prospects. For universities themselves, it is a test of values and integrity. In the absence of both is a loss of student trust, and administrators will be the first to know about it and the first to respond. 

Remarkable individuals like Brown and Connor prove that when transparency is practiced deliberately and with a space built in for student response, trust will drive not only individual student success, but also the collective reputation and resilience of the institution itself. In a time of major change as we're in now, transparency enablers like Brown and Connor are building the foundations on which higher education can remain credible, responsive, and worthy of the stakeholders it serves.

To hear great conversations with Brown, Connor, and other higher education leaders doing incredible work to promote transparency across the sector, visit TrustED's podcast page here.