David Durman, a university administrator who identifies as a nontheistic humanist, recently obtained a workplace accommodation that exempts him from using artificial-intelligence tools on the job. The exemption was granted after Durman consulted the American Humanist Association, a nonprofit that promotes secular humanism, and requested legal protection under the same statutes that cover religious accommodations. The University of Kentucky approved the request, marking a novel application of existing accommodation law.
Durman described humanism as a set of beliefs centered on human well-being and collective flourishing, emphasizing the active use of one’s mind to act morally. He argued that reliance on AI diminishes this mental engagement, potentially eroding the capacity for independent moral judgment. “The way we become moral actors for ourselves and for others is through the active application of our minds,” he told TechCrunch, warning that AI could undermine that process.
In a statement released by the AHA, Durman listed several ways he believes AI threatens humanity. He claimed the technology interferes with people’s ability to earn a living, imposes severe environmental costs, and appropriates creative output that sustains cultural flourishing. “AI is interfering with people’s ability to earn a living, the environmental costs spell disaster for humanity and our planet,” he wrote, adding that art and literature are at risk.
Alexandria Huiskens, a staff attorney with the AHA, told TechCrunch that humanists and other nontheists fall under the same legal protections that shield religious believers from mandated AI use. She noted that concerns about dignity and AI appear across Catholic teaching, Universalist traditions, and secular humanism, and that the law should accommodate those convictions.
Durman is the first humanist to receive a formal workplace exemption from AI, and he cited Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer, as a precedent that motivated his request. Maus had previously secured a similar accommodation, demonstrating that the legal framework can extend beyond traditional religious categories. Durman said his goal is to inspire others with comparable concerns to pursue appropriate resolutions, even if those do not involve formal religious exemption claims.
The University of Kentucky confirmed that it evaluates accommodation requests individually, weighing job duties against the employee’s stated convictions. Spokesperson Jay Blanton said the university determined that Durman could continue performing the essential functions of his role without AI assistance, and that future reviews may adjust accommodations as technology and responsibilities evolve. This response underscores the institution’s willingness to balance operational needs with emerging ethical objections to AI deployment.