I hate to say it but your dean is/was right: the rule of law does not apply to medical schools. They are a professional training program, not a courtroom. Most schools do offer some sort of due process in the form of procedures for contesting adverse decisions, committees of faculty and students to review and render decisions, etc. One of the core tenets of something being a "profession" is that new members are admitted into the profession only by other members of the group. The same applies to the other classic professions of Law and Clergy - both have similar paths and ultimately require you be judged worthy by other professionals. Even now as I'm slogging through some credentialing paperwork, I have to submit letters from multiple practicing physicians who will attest that I am a worthy physician who should be granted the privilege of practicing this hospital.
The inherent problem of subjecting medical schools to the rule of law is this: who is going to serve as the judge? If you ask a court to step in (which is what a lawsuit effectively does), you are asking a judge with no medical training to supplant his judgement for that of the entire faculty of a medical school. As you might imagine, judges have been very reluctant to do this save for the most egregious cases.
Every single lawsuit I've pulled documents on and reviewed I've come away siding with the school almost every time. I think medical schools do a fine job of policing themselves and the evidence lies in decades of successful physician graduates who are currently practicing. Sure, retaliation for reporting can be an issue like it is anywhere, but that in itself does not merit reworking an entire system that has a long track record of success.
Operaman's view is concerning. No institution, public or private, is above the law. As 7331poas and Lawpy have articulated, physicians and institutions of medical education are accountable and liable when the violate the law, both civilly and criminally. Courts are not being asked to rule on whether physicians are allowed to decide who else should become a physician; rather, courts are asked to decide whether physicians and institutions of medical education are in compliance with laws that apply to everyone.
Operaman's views on due process likewise depart from my experience. Based on my knowledge of medical school processes, due process is typically absent. Notice, transparency, and basic fairness, as well as other tenets of due process, tend to be lacking. The fact that a school has a committee (often of unidentified members) that meets (usually without a record of its actions) and issues decisions that may have uncertain consequences, or consequences that are not possible for the student to clarify, with little or no avenue of appeal, does not meet the standard for due process.
As for the track record of medical schools, I must respectfully disagree with Operaman. The record is not one of success. The very model Operaman describes--that of a club, or fraternity, whose members decide who to admit--merits total overhaul, as its legacy is one of exclusion, discrimination, paternalism, mismanagement, and disservice to patients and communities. Professions are not defined by the ability of the existing members to select new admits. What distinguishes law, academics, and clergy as professionals is the calling to the field, the education required (differing from the apprenticeship of a trade), and the service rendered to community, country, and God.
