David Durman, a nontheistic Humanist and an administrator at the University of Kentucky, has been granted a workplace religious exemption that allows him to refrain from using artificial intelligence tools on the job. The accommodation was arranged with the involvement of the American Humanist Association (AHA), a nonprofit organization that advocates for secular humanism.
Rationale for the exemption
Durman told TechCrunch that humanism is a set of beliefs about human experience and interaction with the world, focusing on individual and collective well-being and flourishing. He argued that using AI conflicts with these principles because it diminishes the active use of the mind, which he sees as essential for becoming moral actors for oneself and others. He expressed concern that overreliance on AI would harm critical thinking.
In a statement published by the AHA, Durman wrote that AI interferes with people’s ability to earn a living, carries environmental costs that he described as disastrous for humanity and the planet, and threatens cultural elements such as art and literature by supplanting and appropriating human creativity.
Process and precedents
Durman approached the American Humanist Association to explore legal protections against mandatory workplace AI use. He is the first Humanist known to obtain such an accommodation and one of the earliest public cases of someone pursuing these protections. He said he was inspired by Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer who secured similar protections.
University of Kentucky spokesperson Jay Blanton told TechCrunch that the university evaluates requests for religious accommodations on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the employee’s job duties and the circumstances of the request. In this case, the university determined an accommodation could be provided while allowing the employee to continue performing the essential functions of his position. Blanton added that as technology and job responsibilities evolve, accommodations may be reviewed to ensure they remain reasonable and workable.
Why this matters
The case is notable because it is increasingly uncommon for technology professionals—especially software engineers—to work without any AI assistance. Durman’s administrative role, where he supports researchers applying for grants, has not required mandatory AI use, but colleagues and supervisors have sometimes recommended trying AI tools. He sought the exemption proactively in case recommendations become requirements in the future.
Durman emphasized that his request is rooted in his personal convictions and that he does not intend to dictate others’ beliefs. He expressed hope that people with similar concerns about AI and human dignity will feel encouraged to pursue appropriate remedies or accommodations where they see fit.
Note: Names and organizations are presented as given in the original reporting.
