A worker does not have to believe in a god to see a conflict between personal convictions and workplace AI use. David Durman, a nontheistic Humanist and University of Kentucky administrator, secured an accommodation allowing him to abstain from using AI in his job.
Why Durman objected to AI
Durman describes Humanism as a set of beliefs centered on human experience, well-being and flourishing. He says people become moral actors by actively applying their minds, and worries that relying on AI could diminish that capacity and harm people’s ability to make ethical choices.
His concerns extend beyond critical thinking. In a statement published by the American Humanist Association, Durman wrote that AI affects people’s ability to earn a living, carries environmental costs, and threatens human creativity in art and literature. He sees those concerns as connected to the flourishing of individuals and society.
As AI tools became more common in everyday life, Durman approached the AHA to learn how he could obtain protection from being required to use them at work. The association is a nonprofit that advances secular Humanism. Humanism is not anti-religious, but it often appeals to people who do not believe in supernatural powers and want a scientific and moral framework for their lives.
How the accommodation was handled
The University of Kentucky reviews requests for religious accommodations individually, spokesperson Jay Blanton told TechCrunch. The review considers an employee’s job responsibilities and the circumstances of the request.
In Durman’s case, the university concluded that an accommodation was possible while he continued to perform the essential functions of his position. Blanton said that as technology and job responsibilities change, accommodations may be reviewed to determine whether they remain reasonable and workable.
Durman supports researchers who are applying for grants. AI use has not been a requirement in his administrative role, but colleagues and leaders have recommended that employees try the tools. He sought the accommodation in case those suggestions turn into a mandate later.
Humanist and nontheistic beliefs at work
Alexandria Huiskens, a staff attorney at the AHA, said concern about AI and human dignity can appear across different faiths and traditions, including Catholic teachings, Universalism and Humanism. She said the association wants Humanists and nontheists to know they may fall within the categories protected by workplace law.
Durman is the first Humanist to secure workplace accommodations allowing him to abstain from AI use, and one of the first people to discuss publicly seeking this kind of protection. He was encouraged by the experience of Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer who obtained similar protections.
Maus’s circumstances differ from Durman’s: it has become rare for software engineers to write code without AI assistance. Durman’s current role does not require AI, but his request addresses the possibility that workplace expectations could shift.
A personal request with a broader message
Durman said his application was about his own convictions, not an effort to tell others what to think. He hopes that people with similar concerns will feel encouraged to pursue a resolution that fits their situation.
His case shows how questions about AI at work can involve more than efficiency or new tools. For employees, they may also touch on human dignity, creativity, environmental impact and the role of personal judgment. The university’s approach, as described by its spokesperson, is to assess the job and the individual request together.
Durman’s exemption does not mean AI was already required in his position. He sought an accommodation while its use remained optional for him, so that his convictions would be considered if workplace expectations changed.