The recent ouster of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln from the elite Association of American Universities has raised some interesting questions about the role of research money in determining who can earn membership to this exclusive circle of the nation’s top institutions.

In a recent article published in the Chronicle of Higher Education , some key aspects of the debate were outlined, but in between the lines, I see a couple of bigger questions. First, while research funding clearly contributes to learning opportunities for students, does the AAU’s new ranking formula discount the efforts of universities that decide to prioritize their new spending on teaching? And how about improvement of facilities that directly contribute to the quality of student life, beyond teaching? Ignoring these practical bottom-line issues doesn’t serve the needs of our students; it serves the needs of corporations and the inflated egos of academics. It’s “ivory tower thinking” at its worst. In the end, this elitism is likely to backfire, and one can only hope that our students aren’t the ones who get burned.

We live in interesting times, where hard choices are being made about what we can offer students, and how we can retain top faculty and staff, in the face of decreased funding from states, and private donors, who are struggling with financial hardships of their own.

It’s even more interesting, then, that a major association would create a system now, in the face of what some are calling the “higher education bubble,” to marginalize a flagship university over, in part, matters of research funding. In my view, this is another example of misplaced elitism by those who have insulated themselves from the hard realities of our times. Not far afield, in some ways, from the recent decision of two major student affairs associations (NASPA and ACPA) to pursue a vote on consolidation, only to have different rules about whose voice counts in deciding whether to merge: one association choosing to allow a voice to graduate students and the other, to limit decision-making to the “old guard” and protect the status quo.

I’d argue that both of these association matters are symptomatic of something greater, and that more is to come. Associations that fail to adapt to the realities of interesting times are as relevant as Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned. There was an epic, poetic quality to it, in some ways, but his tribute didn’t stop the flames.

So the questions before academia are simple enough:

• Who’s guarding the academy, and who’s fiddling while it burns?
• At the end of the day, how can associations remain relevant to the professionals they serve (established and emerging)?
• And if they remain relevant, what will rise in their place?
• Is it elitist to classify individuals and institutions and to define for them their roles in the national debates of our times, or is it”just the way things are?”
• Is there any hope for practical solutions in academic circles that are so highly focused on research?