I have some major concerns with the conduct of UVA in this case. I'll add the caveat that I do not have all of the facts of the case available to me, but I've got a pretty good idea of what its like to be a medical student, and I've seen the concept of professionalism used as a weapon, because it is vague and anything can be spun into a claim regarding professionalism.
The incident that started this whole episode is ridiculous. The medical school had a public forum about microaggressions, and then handed out the microphone. They should not be surprised when someone makes a bit of an ass of themselves. You hand out a microphone at a public forums, you will get cringeworthy moments. The fact that someone annoys you when you hand them a microphone is not a reason to create documentation about their professionalism. It is disturbing to see someone use "professionalism" as an excuse to start acting against someone's career without some clear misbehavior.
The lack of due process. It is my firm belief that any type of disciplinary action against a student in any academic setting should provide the student with due process. Students should be informed of the allegations against them, they should be given the opportunity to retain counsel and have counsel assist them, and the hearing should be decided by some type of impartial arbiters. These basic standards of due process were not afforded to this student. We're talking about something that, if not reversed by the court, will destroy this young man's hopes of ever becoming a physician. We're talking about tremendous consequences, and with consequences like that, basic due process should be followed. If the facts as presented are correct, the student was alleged to have issued threats on social media--but the details of the threats were never disclosed to the student. Presumably there are screenshots or something, and that would be important to disclose to a student when initiating proceedings. The student wasn't given an opportunity to be represented, and then was labeled as "aggressive" for recording the hearing. This is not due process. This is a joke of a process--and when people have an entire career riding on the outcome of such a process, basic due process is a must.
The information contained in this Reason article is certainly one-sided, but it raises enough alarm for me that I think it is very likely that the professors involved abused their position to retaliate against the student.
The first amendment issues are important as part of a national public policy debate going on at Universities around the USA. However, this case also highlights some other very important issues in medicine. The biggest issue is that the concept of professionalism is vague, and it can be weaponized when you piss off the wrong person. Standards of conduct should be specific and objective--because then people always know whether they are in compliance or not. Vague rules are a grant of power and discretion for the people in charge to nurture their grudges. That's just human nature.
Finally, I would point out that the ACGME has established standards of due process for residents who are subject to disciplinary action. I think similar standards should be imposed by accrediting bodies on medical schools, and really on all institutions of higher learning. If serious disciplinary action is to be taken against a student, a fair and transparent process should be followed. Do we really want to be bringing up the next generation of leaders in the environment where these things are nebulously defined and arbitrarily enforced?