A moral infraction...should I go forward with the truth?

[necrophiliac]

<p>

You draw an illogical conclusion. It is Penn’s responsibility to choose to act or not act on the best information available to it, and decide how much effort they want to put into finding out the truth. Clearly it is absurd beyond any measure to think they can investigate the truthfulness of thousands of applicants. Civil society relies on police to enforce laws, and police rely on citizens to bring things to their attention all the time. One example is neighborhood watch. But even in cases where there is not such a vested interest, they need people to be their eyes and ears to supplement their own work. And as for your investor example, it makes no sense to talk about covering losses. The more pertinent example would be should I report a broker or similar individual that I know is ripping people off, even if I have not invested with him. Of course I should, and there was a guy that did just that with Madoff years before he finally got caught. The fact that the SEC was completely negligent in doing their job is only equivalent to Penn ignoring the OP if he came to them, which they are free to do. The SEC was not free to do it (at least not without withering criticism) because they have a different duty, but the point is the same. The guy was right to report Madoff, even though it did nothing for him at the time.

</p>

<p>On the contrary, neighborhood watch is just a way of doing things, not a part of a system. My friend was applying to NIH for an internship and I was cited as a contact. They indeed asked me about my friend, his honesty, integrity, etc. If Penn wanted / cared, they would also conduct their due diligence.
Also, your example of guy ripping people off is a VERY complex question. If you make an accusation, you have the preponderance of compelling evidence burden or else the person sues you for slander/libel. Do you care to do that?
You say Penn is overburdened with applications in defense of due diligence. Lets consider this:
It is common knowledge that Penn (as all other top, exclusive schools) is reluctant to accept more than a few people from a given high school. Thus, everyone applying there is in direct competition with you. You then have an incentive to lie to adcom about a grievance your fellow applicant(s) are not reporting (in the absence of legal consequence). If we accept this system, it is infinitely more burdensome for Penn to investigate all allegations.</p>

<p>I can hear you offer the argument: if claim was proven false, person who made it should be rejected. “Hey Bill, I know you aren’t applying to Penn so can you please claim Jimmy exploits his President status in Honors Society to grope men?” --see where I’m going?</p>

<p>

translates as “everyone else does it so that makes it OK”. I thought we all learned better than that by second grade.

Economic analysis, game theory. I’m not talking about drug use. I’m talking about competition for a limited resource. </p>

<p>

[QUOTE]
a big part of the OP’s decision would be his own state of mind as to why he is doing it. If he truly finds it morally objectionable enough that it rises to the level of a reportable offense, then he is morally obligated to do it. I think it is, because it is fraud that harms another potential admit. If he doesn’t, then he should let it go.

[QUOTE]

Addressing the deleted part of the above paragraph serves no purpose for my argument (because as I disclaimed, it was a flawed example anyway) so lets discuss this part. </p>

<p>At least we agree on something. Except I called this the intangible benefit of reporting and asked the OP to weigh this option against the risks of suit and obligations to prove his allegations.</p>