After reading the full Medium post, I have a lot of concerns. Firstly, the discrete changing of the scholarship language was out of bounds. That is, technically, changing the terms of a binding contract on one side without alerting the other party. It would have taken someone with major pull to request those changes be made. With that context established, everything else that she claims sounds a lot more believable. An institution that would do something that brazen and unethical, probably would also retaliate against a student who puts up a fuss about it.
The issue of grading is also concerning. First, I will be completely transparent in that I do not like the idea of any program that has sliding or ambiguous grading practices that may impact different students to different degrees, especially when there is not an established standard of transparency. Her correspondence with the professors in two of the course blocks were troubling. The way that they refused to hear appeals, in violation with their own handbook, is a sign of a culture of that does not hold itself accountable. Also, the one professor who simply could not come up with a valid explanation for the fact that she received fewer credited points back, pretty much seals the deal that something was amiss. It is not difficult to say, in simple terms, that we credited points back based on specific items that were deemed invalid and you happened to get those items correctly (strange, but ok) so you did not benefit from the curve. That is problematic for a variety of reasons, namely, it could allow instructors to pick and choose items based on who got them right. However, the instructor asserts that she did not get the tossed items correctly. So there really isn't any explanation for the discrepancy. I also scoff at the idea of taking credit away for not specify right or left side of the body for MS1 anatomy lab. I don't think anyone can truly believe that a medical student doesn't know left from right. The idea at that point is to demonstrate that you know what the structure IS. I don't want to get to into the weeds on that, but if she did observe other students not being dinged for those small things, then it adds to a clear picture of some sort of bias or retaliation.
Finally, there is the issue of disability accommodation and equitable treatment of other similarly situated students. If they have done things like offered LOA or full year repeats (with the scholarship still active) then they will have a very hard time explaining why this time was handled so differently.
At any rate, those were my impressions. I do want to say, just for clarity, that I notice some accounts that have engaged this conversation have since been restricted. There does not appear to be anyone that is violating TOS in their responses. At most, some of the early contributions had some less than savory racial undertones, but even then, people have a right to speak that way. My hope is that if a moderator here on SDN is in any way tied to the UTSW, that he or she would not allow their affiliation to cause them to unfairly censor contributors.