The university allowed him to quit.
In truth he was fired.
It wasn't so much that he lied, but that he got caught.
Would the University have kept Bellesiles on had he not resigned? Resigning implies that what Bellesiles did was not bad enough to fire him. In other words, Emory doesn't think what Bellesiles did was all that wrong. That's the message I get. That discredits Bellesiles as much as Emory. Emory failed to act in accordance with upholding honesty. Bellesiles can imply that he is taking the high ground yet he negates that claming he can't bring himself to work in a hostile environment. If it is a hostile environment it warrants Emory firing him. You may be right that Emory effectively fired Bellesiles, but if so, Emory shot itself in the foot by not standing on the honest principle by stating that they were right to fire Bellesiles. How can Emory claim that they allowed Bellesiles to "save face" by resigning knowing that he would attack Emory as being a hostile environment.
They both screwed up and shirk their responsibility to honesty.
More important is the role the Internet and WWW had in exposing the fraud. That trend will continue a geometric increase, not linear.