A Nontheistic Humanist Wins the Right to Decline AI Use at Work

Table of Contents

• You might want to know
• A Humanist’s case for an AI accommodation
• Key Insights Table
• Afterwards...

You might want to know

• Can someone who does not believe in a god request a religious accommodation to avoid using AI at work?
• What concerns about human dignity, creativity, and critical thinking motivated this employee’s request?

A Humanist’s case for an AI accommodation

Pope Leo XIV has warned that artificial intelligence may threaten human dignity. Yet concern about AI is not limited to people who follow a conventional religion. David Durman, a nontheistic Humanist and administrator at the University of Kentucky, has secured a workplace accommodation allowing him to abstain from using AI. His case illustrates how people with different belief systems may raise similar questions about the place of automated tools in work and society.

Humanism, as Durman describes it, is a set of beliefs about human experience and how people relate to the world. Its focus is on human well-being and flourishing, both individually and collectively. It encourages people to act to improve their own lives and contribute to the flourishing of others. For Durman, those principles are not abstract ideas: they inform how he thinks about moral responsibility, technology, and the role people should play in making decisions.

As AI tools became more common in everyday life, Durman began to consider whether using them might conflict with those convictions. He turned to the American Humanist Association (AHA), a nonprofit organization that advances secular Humanism, to learn whether legal protections could apply if his employer expected him to use AI. His concern was that relying on a system to perform parts of a person’s thinking could weaken the practice of judgment that, in his view, helps people become responsible moral actors.

Durman told TechCrunch that people develop the ability to act morally for themselves and others through the active use of their minds. He worries that diminishing that activity through AI use could have a negative effect on people’s ability to make considered choices. His position does not mean that every use of AI necessarily has the same effect, nor does his accommodation amount to a general rejection of technology. Rather, he sees a potential conflict between certain forms of reliance on AI and the values that guide his own conduct.

In a statement published by the AHA earlier this week, Durman described several broader concerns. He argued that AI may interfere with people’s ability to earn a living, that the environmental costs could pose serious risks to humanity and the planet, and that the replacement or appropriation of human creative work threatens cultural forms such as art and literature. In his view, these issues matter because creative and intellectual activity can help societies flourish. His objection therefore connects personal conviction with questions about employment, environmental impact, and cultural life.

Humanism is not inherently anti-religious. It often appeals to people who are skeptical of a god or supernatural power but still want a scientific and moral framework for understanding the world and guiding their actions. This distinction is important to the workplace question: a person’s beliefs may be sincerely held and central to their life without being based on traditional religious doctrine.

Alexandria Huiskens, a staff attorney at the AHA, told TechCrunch that concerns about AI and human dignity can be found across multiple faiths and traditions, including Catholic teachings, Universalism, and Humanism. She said the organization wants Humanists and nontheists to understand that their beliefs may fall within categories protected by workplace law. The underlying issue is not whether every tradition reaches the same conclusions about AI, but whether an employee’s beliefs are meaningful to that person and can be considered in an accommodation process.

Durman is the first Humanist to secure workplace accommodations that let him abstain from AI use, and he is among the first people to speak publicly about seeking these protections. He was encouraged by the experience of Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist and software engineer who had obtained similar protections for herself. Their cases show that requests can arise in different kinds of jobs, though the practical implications may depend heavily on an employee’s specific duties.

Maus’s situation is especially unusual because software engineers are increasingly expected to work with AI-assisted coding tools. Durman’s position is different. In his administrative role, he supports researchers applying for grants, and he has not been required to use AI as part of his work. Some colleagues and leaders, like many people in workplaces across different fields, have encouraged employees to try these tools. Durman sought an accommodation before any suggestion became a requirement, aiming to address a possible conflict in advance.

The University of Kentucky said it reviews requests for religious accommodations individually, taking account of an employee’s responsibilities and the circumstances of the request. Spokesperson Jay Blanton said the university concluded that an accommodation could be made in Durman’s case while allowing him to continue performing the essential functions of his position. The institution also noted that, as technology and job responsibilities change, accommodations may be reviewed to make sure they remain reasonable and workable.

This response underscores that an accommodation is not necessarily an unlimited or permanent guarantee that a job will never involve a particular technology. An employer may need to consider the essential functions of a role, how work practices evolve, and whether a proposed arrangement remains practical. The University’s statement described an individualized review rather than a blanket rule that all employees may refuse AI or that every belief-based request must be granted.

Durman has emphasized that his decision is personal. He said he is not trying to tell other people what to think or feel. Instead, he hopes that people with similar concerns will feel able to seek a resolution that fits their circumstances. That resolution need not always take the form of a religious exemption; the broader point is to raise concerns through an appropriate process and explore options where a person’s work and convictions appear to conflict.

The central lesson is that workplace questions about AI are not only technical or managerial; they can also touch on conscience, identity, and human values. Durman’s case does not settle how every employer should respond, nor does it establish that every objection to AI qualifies for an accommodation. It does, however, offer a public example of how a nontheistic belief system can enter a discussion often framed only around conventional religious practice.

Key Insights Table

Afterwards...

As AI becomes more embedded in professional life, employers and employees may face more conversations about when these tools are useful, what responsibilities they shift, and how their use fits with individual convictions. Durman’s experience suggests that it can be helpful to address such concerns before a proposed practice becomes a job requirement. The outcome will depend on the nature of the work, the employee’s beliefs, and the feasibility of an accommodation.

The case also invites a broader discussion about what should remain distinctly human in workplaces that increasingly rely on automated systems. Questions about judgment, creativity, livelihood, and dignity are unlikely to be resolved by technology alone. As organizations adopt AI, transparent policies and thoughtful individual review may help them balance practical needs with the convictions and responsibilities of the people who do the work.