University of Kentucky: AI Exemption for Non-Theist Humanist

The University of Kentucky granted a religious exemption to David Durman, a non-theistic humanist, allowing him to abstain from using AI tools. The American Humanist Association claims that these protections extend to non-theists, while the institution emphasizes a case-by-case and revisable review process. The precedent of a Unitarian Universalist engineer is cited as inspiration.

The university conducts a case-by-case and revisable review

Spokesperson Jay Blanton states that the University of Kentucky evaluates requests for religious accommodations individually, taking into account the responsibilities of the position and the circumstances of the request. In David Durman's case, the institution determined that an accommodation could be granted without hindering the employee's ability to perform the essential functions of his job. Blanton clarifies that these accommodations may be reviewed as technologies and missions evolve to remain reasonable and feasible. In his administrative role supporting researchers with grant applications, David Durman was not required to use AI tools, even though colleagues and leaders encouraged teams to try them. He therefore requested an exemption in advance, fearing that a recommendation could turn into an obligation tomorrow.

Protections announced for non-theists at work

According to attorney Alexandria Huiskens, concerns linking artificial intelligence and human dignity span several traditions, from Catholic teachings to Unitarian Universalism and humanism. She argues that humanists and non-theists also fall under legal protections in the workplace. Humanism is not presented as anti-religious and attracts individuals skeptical of a supernatural power who seek a framework that is both scientific and moral.

A religious exemption granted to a non-theistic humanist

David Durman, a non-theistic humanist and administrator at the University of Kentucky, recently received a religious exemption allowing him not to use artificial intelligence at work. He is described as the first humanist to benefit from such an accommodation and one of the first to speak about it publicly. This case articulates a claim for protection based on non-theistic beliefs within a framework of religious accommodations.

Durman's arguments and cited precedent in engineering

David Durman believes that the use of AI goes against his convictions. He argues that humans become moral agents through the active application of their minds and that diminishing this role through AI would harm that capacity. In a statement relayed by the American Humanist Association, he asserts that AI undermines the ability to earn a living, that its environmental costs herald disaster, and that the replacement and theft of human creativity threaten art and literature. Observing the growing popularity of these tools, he states that he is acting on his own behalf, without seeking to dictate the behavior of others, while hoping to encourage those who share his concerns to seek a way out. He cites the case of Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist and software engineer, who received similar protections, although this situation is considered unusual in a profession where code without AI assistance has become rare. In the religious sphere, there are also critiques, such as Pope Leo XIV's denunciation of AI in terms of human dignity.