To me, it's equally -- in my feeling, MORE -- important to retain a living sense of what 20th-century "neoclassicism" was and is, and how it revitalized and possibly saved a dying art form.
I was talking about Balanchine's development of neoclassiscism, something which began as long ago as the late 1920s. I was NOT talking about what might happen at some point in the future, as your reference to Jennifer Homans' book implies.
I can't think of anyone who would disagree with the idea that classical ballet in the 1920s and for a long time afterwards was in a very bad way in western Europe, almost non-existent in the Americas, and surviving precariously in the Soviet Union. This decline had definitely been turned around by the 1970s in most of the western world. My point was that Balanchine's neoclassicism -- which honored his love of classical ballet while refusing to be satisfied with merely repeating it -- was one of those factors responsible for that revival. Is this really controversial?