University of Kentucky grants Humanist administrator religious exemption from AI use

A University of Kentucky administrator has secured a religious accommodation that exempts him from using AI at work — and he did it as a nontheistic Humanist rather than a member of a traditional faith. According to TechCrunch, David Durman is the first Humanist known to have obtained this kind of workplace accommodation, and among the first people anywhere to speak publicly about pursuing one.

How the exemption came about

Durman holds an administrative post supporting researchers who apply for grants, a job that has not required AI so far. But TechCrunch reports that colleagues and university leadership have encouraged staff to experiment with the tools, and Durman moved to lock in a formal exemption before a suggestion could turn into a requirement. He worked with the American Humanist Association (AHA), a nonprofit that promotes secular humanism, to figure out how existing workplace protections could apply to his case.

His objection is philosophical rather than theological. In his telling, people develop as moral agents by exercising their own judgment, and leaning on AI erodes that capacity along with the critical thinking that depends on it. In a statement released by the AHA, he also cited AI's disruption of people's ability to earn a living, its environmental toll, and its displacement and appropriation of human creativity in areas such as art and literature.

Nontheistic beliefs can qualify too

Humanism generally appeals to people who are skeptical of gods or the supernatural but still want a scientific and moral framework to ground their lives, and it is not inherently hostile to religion. That distinction matters legally. AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens told TechCrunch that concern about AI and human dignity cuts across traditions — Catholic teaching, Universalism, Humanism — and that Humanists and other nontheists should know they are also protected by workplace religious-protection law.

The framing echoes broader unease within organized religion. TechCrunch notes that Pope Leo XIV has warned that AI endangers human dignity, placing Durman's case at the intersection of a worry shared by believers and nonbelievers alike.

Following someone else's lead

Durman decided to act after reading that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer, had secured comparable protections for herself. TechCrunch describes Maus's situation as especially unusual, since writing code without any AI assistance has become rare among engineers. Durman's own case was less contentious in practice, because his role had never demanded AI, but he chose to formalize the exemption in advance.

He framed the move as personal rather than prescriptive. He told TechCrunch he was not trying to dictate how others think or feel, but hoped that people with similar worries would pursue them through whatever avenue fits their situation, whether or not that ends up being a religious exemption.

The university's response

University of Kentucky spokesperson Jay Blanton said in a statement that the institution evaluates religious-accommodation requests case by case, weighing the employee's responsibilities and the circumstances of the request. In Durman's case, it concluded that an accommodation was feasible while he continues to perform the core duties of his position. Blanton added that as technology and job responsibilities evolve, accommodations may be revisited to confirm they still make sense — a caveat that leaves the arrangement open to review if AI ever becomes central to his role.

Why it matters

Two trends collide in this case. Employers across industries are nudging, and in some cases requiring, workers to adopt AI tools, and employees who object now have a small but growing body of precedent for pushing back through religious-accommodation law. Durman's case also widens the definition of who can use that route, extending it beyond conventional religions to deeply held nontheistic worldviews like Humanism. The open question is durability: if a job's essential duties eventually presuppose AI, an accommodation granted today may not survive tomorrow. But as the first publicly known Humanist to secure one, Durman has shown that an objection to AI does not need a god behind it to carry legal weight.