One of the most persistent questions in the entire Penn State saga -- we've seen it written often, we've seen it on Twitter, and we've even been asked specifically about it a couple of times -- is how Mike McQueary, the then-grad assistant who testified he witnessed the most infamous incident involving Jerry Sandusky in 2002, has managed to keep his job.

UPDATE: He is on paid leave as of this afternoon.

Our best guess was to offer the notion that McQueary was protected -- or at least potentially protected -- by laws that protect those who blow the whistle against crimes or other workplace violations.

Per ESPN, this sounds like a reasonable theory:

Stephen Kohn, the executive director of the National Whistleblowers Center in Washington, D.C., believes reporting the incident to Paterno alone could be enough to protect McQueary under the state's whistle-blower law. "If they were to fire him because he made the disclosure and reported it, then he would be protected," Kohn said. "Just because he's unpopular, just because people blame him for having the head coach dismissed, he can't be fired for any of that. ... You have to look at where the employee is on the totem pole. There are different expectations at different levels. A manager versus an employee. A student versus a teacher. It's just how it goes. The last thing you want to do is create an environment where people don't even tell the supervisor."

According to the Ethics Resource Center, six in 10 employees who viewed misconduct reported it in 2010. Seventy-five percent of those told their direct manager or another supervisor. Ellen Dannin, a Penn State law professor who specializes in labor and employment law, was unsure whether McQueary would be protected as a whistle-blower but agreed that he would be held to a different standard than Paterno, even though he witnessed the act.

"Joe Paterno, 10-11 years ago was an incredibly powerful guy," Dannin said. "What would have happened to him if he would have taken it further? If he would have insisted on answers? Nothing. It would have been resolved. What did [Paterno] have to lose versus what did [McQueary] have to lose? There's no comparison. [Paterno] could have safely ended this."

As the legal implications of everything play out, this will be a particularly fascinating piece of the puzzle.