> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.dailyferment.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # A humanist got out of using AI at work. Draft objectors built the test. - URL: https://www.dailyferment.com/religious-exemption-from-ai-at-work-humanist/ - Published: 2026-10-30T01:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-30T01:00:00.000Z - Description: The University of Kentucky excused a humanist from using AI at work. The exemption is narrower than it sounds, and its test was built for the draft. - Author: Rana Bilal Zafar - Tags: Society & Culture, Leadership, #reframe Can you refuse to use AI at work on grounds of conscience? In the US, sometimes. On 25 September 2026 the University of Kentucky excused David Durman, a research administrator and a humanist, from using AI to do his own work, [Religion News Service reported](https://um-insight.net/us-news/exempted-from-ai/?ref=dailyferment.com) on 26 October. He asked under Title VII, the federal law on religious accommodation, which also covers moral beliefs held as strongly as religious ones. What interests me is how narrow the exemption is, and that the test behind it was built for men refusing the draft. ## What did the University of Kentucky actually grant? Durman helps researchers with grant applications. When the university started asking staff to use AI in their work, naming tools like Microsoft Teams Copilot, Claude and ChatGPT, he objected. He told RNS that "offloading that labor, regardless of whether it's taxing or not, is undercutting my ability to be a moral actor." The American Humanist Association helped him write the request, which cited the 2003 Humanist Manifesto. The association believes it is the first AI exemption granted to a humanist; that is their claim, not something I could check. The letter from the university's Office of Equal Opportunity is the part worth reading slowly. "David may still be expected to participate in such meetings or be required to submit materials through such sites. David is excused from personal use of AI to complete his tasks." ![Two boxes: Excused, personal use of AI to do his own tasks; Still expected, attend meetings where colleagues use AI and submit work through sites that use AI](https://storage.ghost.io/c/d7/b7/d7b77195-48c5-45ab-8688-51750879d1d6/content/images/2026/10/df83-what-it-covers.png) What the exemption covers. Source: Religion News Service, 26 Oct 2026, quoting the university's letter. My first reaction was that this is a loophole anyone can walk through: say the magic words, skip the tool. Reading the letter changed that. He gets out of one thing, his own use. Everything around him stays as it is. And it was easy partly because, as his lawyer Alexandria Huiskens put it, the university "found that there was no undue burden to David's department." **25 Sept 2026**date of the university's letter granting the exemption **1965**year of the Seeger ruling, the source of the test he relied on **6%**of workers in one survey say AI is required where they work Sources: RNS via United Methodist Insight, 26 Oct 2026; United States v. Seeger, 1965; CNBC and SurveyMonkey AI and Jobs Survey, 19 Aug 2026 (no sample size given on the page). ## Why can a humanist get a religious exemption? Because US law decided in the 1960s that belief in God isn't the test. The [EEOC regulation](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1605.1?ref=dailyferment.com) counts moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong held "with the strength of traditional religious views," even if no religious group holds them. It says that standard comes from two draft cases. ![Black and white photograph of the front of the United States Supreme Court building with its columns](https://storage.ghost.io/c/d7/b7/d7b77195-48c5-45ab-8688-51750879d1d6/content/images/2026/10/df83-supreme-court.jpg) The US Supreme Court. Photo by [Tim Mossholder](https://unsplash.com/@timmossholder?ref=dailyferment.com) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-black-and-white-photo-of-the-supreme-court-V12FTtOFhRk?ref=dailyferment.com) In [United States v. Seeger](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/163/?ref=dailyferment.com) (1965) the Supreme Court read the conscientious objector law to cover anyone whose belief, "sincere and meaningful," holds a place in their life "parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God." In [Welsh v. United States](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/398/333/?ref=dailyferment.com) (1970) a plurality went further, to beliefs that are purely ethical or moral in source. So the draft board stopped asking which church you belonged to and started asking whether you meant it. That move is what lets a humanist in Kentucky stand where a Quaker stood sixty years ago. It also hands the employer the draft board's old job. As the law professor Douglas Laycock told RNS, whether a belief qualifies is "a fact question that presumably the employer will investigate." Same test, two refusals #### Draft objector, 1965 to 1970 - *Refusing:* military service - *Test:* a sincere belief that holds the place religion would - *Who judges:* the draft board - *Limit:* sincerity, not membership #### AI objector, 2026 - *Refusing:* personal use of AI at work - *Test:* the same, through Title VII and the EEOC rule - *Who judges:* the employer - *Limit:* undue hardship to the business Sources: Seeger (1965); Welsh (1970); 29 CFR 1605.1; RNS, 26 Oct 2026. ## Can my employer refuse an AI exemption? Yes, in two ways. First, the [EEOC guidance](https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination?ref=dailyferment.com) says social, political or economic philosophies and personal preferences are not religious beliefs, so "I think AI is bad for jobs" probably fails where "using it breaks my moral duty to think for myself" might not. Second, [Title VII](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e?ref=dailyferment.com) only requires an accommodation that doesn't cause undue hardship. Since [Groff v. DeJoy](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-174%5Fk536.pdf?ref=dailyferment.com) in 2023 that means "substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business," not a trivial cost. That second test is the one that will move. For a grant administrator in 2026, doing the work by hand costs his department nothing, so the answer was easy. If AI use becomes the job itself, as when [Epic banned hand-written code](https://www.dailyferment.com/epic-no-hand-written-code-ada-mandate/), the same request starts to look like a request not to do the job. I'm inferring that; no court has ruled on an AI objection yet. The first reported case, [Erin Maus](https://www.computerworld.com/article/4184617/software-engineer-reportedly-wins-religious-exemption-from-ai-use-2.html?ref=dailyferment.com), a Unitarian Universalist software engineer, also ended with the employer saying yes. One honest limit: all of this is US law. I haven't looked at how other countries treat a conscience objection to a workplace tool, and I'd expect the answers to differ. ## How sure am I? Established The University of Kentucky excused David Durman from personal AI use on 25 Sept 2026 under Title VII, and the US test for non-theistic belief comes from the draft cases Seeger and Welsh. Inferred Exemptions like this stay easy only while AI use is optional to the job; the undue hardship test will tighten as AI becomes the work. Still a guess That employers will end up judging sincerity the way draft boards did, and how they will do it. The claim, in one sentence A conscience exemption from AI at work protects what you do with your own mind, not what the organisation does around you, and it lasts only as long as doing the work by hand costs the employer little. **More on Daily Ferment:** [The UK will curb non-competes. Football shows where the restraint goes next.](https://www.dailyferment.com/uk-non-compete-ban-bosman-notice-periods/) and [AI hasn't paid off outside tech. Electricity took four decades.](https://www.dailyferment.com/ai-productivity-paradox-apollo-slok-dynamo/) ## Sources - [Bob Smietana, Religion News Service: A Kentucky man becomes the first humanist granted religious exemption from AI, 26 Oct 2026 (reprint on United Methodist Insight)](https://um-insight.net/us-news/exempted-from-ai/?ref=dailyferment.com) - [Computerworld: Software engineer reportedly wins religious exemption from AI use, 12 Jun 2026](https://www.computerworld.com/article/4184617/software-engineer-reportedly-wins-religious-exemption-from-ai-use-2.html?ref=dailyferment.com) - [42 U.S.C. 2000e, Title VII definitions (Cornell LII)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e?ref=dailyferment.com) - [29 CFR 1605.1, religious nature of a practice or belief (Cornell LII)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1605.1?ref=dailyferment.com) - [EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 12: Religious Discrimination, 2021](https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination?ref=dailyferment.com) - [Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447, 29 Jun 2023](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-174%5Fk536.pdf?ref=dailyferment.com) - [United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 1965 (Justia)](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/163/?ref=dailyferment.com) - [Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 1970 (Justia)](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/398/333/?ref=dailyferment.com) - [CNBC and SurveyMonkey, AI and Jobs Survey, 19 Aug 2026](https://www.surveymonkey.com/curiosity/cnbc-ai-work-survey-august-2026/?ref=dailyferment.com)