BUSINESSDevelopments · · Source: Religion News Service
AI at work: US university exempts a humanist from using it
In September 2026, the University of Kentucky agreed that research administrator David Durman does not have to use AI tools at work. He is a humanist and relied on US law protecting religious beliefs; the American Humanist Association believes it is the first such exemption for a humanist.
What happened
- The person: David Durman helps researchers apply for grants. He had not been forced to use AI, but colleagues and leadership recommended it, and he wanted protection in case that became a requirement.
- The legal basis: Title VII, a US federal law. It requires employers to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so causes undue hardship.
- The scope: Durman need not personally use tools such as ChatGPT, Claude or Copilot. He still has to attend meetings and use platforms that run AI.
- The process: The matter was resolved without going to court.
His reasoning
Durman argues that moral action depends on actively using your own mind, and that handing over your thinking weakens that ability over time. He also points to effects on jobs and the environment and to the use of human creativity without consent.
The university said it reviews such requests individually and found a solution here that lets him keep performing the essential functions of his position.
One case, but a signal
He is not the first. In May, software engineer Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist, secured a similar exemption. Legal commentators note that a simple dislike of a technology generally isn't enough under US law, and that outcomes depend on the facts of each case. This is a US matter and does not carry over directly to other countries.
What this means for you
- "Can my employer make me use AI?" is no longer a theoretical question. It is reaching HR departments now.
- If your company is rolling out AI, decide up front what is a recommendation, what is required, and how objections are handled.
- The case applies to the US. For your own situation, only individual advice from a qualified employment lawyer will help.
Luigi's take
I like working with AI and regularly cover tools on this site. Even so, I don't find Durman's argument far-fetched. If you hand off every bit of thinking, you eventually lose the habit. We covered this only yesterday: an Anthropic study showed how strongly AI agents shape the judgment of professionals, often without them noticing. For me that's no reason to avoid AI, but it is a good reason to decide deliberately what you think through yourself.
For managers, the lesson lies less in the law than in the rollout. Ordering people to use AI creates resistance, often among good people. My advice: show specific tasks where AI helps, make the benefit visible and leave room for objections. And write down what is voluntary and what isn't. That single page saves a lot of difficult conversations later.
Source
Religion News Service: Bericht über die Ausnahme für David Durman, 26. Oktober 2026
More sources
- TechCrunch – Stellungnahme der Universität und Begründung
- heise online – Deutschsprachige Einordnung
- FindLaw – Umfang der Ausnahme und rechtlicher Rahmen (Title VII)
This article was researched and written with AI assistance. Responsible: Luigi Lugmayr.
