A University of Kentucky employee has secured a religious accommodation allowing him to avoid personally using artificial intelligence because he believes delegating thought and judgement to machines conflicts with his humanist convictions.

David Dorman, 45, who helps researchers prepare grant applications, received formal approval at the beginning of the month. The American Humanist Association, which supported his application, says it is the first known exemption of its kind based on a humanist worldview.

The permission has a firm boundary: Dorman must still attend meetings where colleagues use AI and co-operate with working systems that incorporate it. He is excused from operating the technology himself, not entitled to an AI-free workplace.

The university had encouraged staff to use tools including ChatGPT, Claude and Microsoft Copilot. Dorman’s objection was neither difficulty with technology nor fear of inaccurate answers. He regards the effort of thinking through his work, ethical choices and relationships as essential to developing as a moral person. Letting a machine undertake that effort, he argues, weakens his ability to take moral responsibility for his actions.

He also believes AI threatens livelihoods, consumes substantial environmental resources and harms human creativity.

His application relied on the US Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so imposes a substantial burden. As interpreted by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that protection can extend to deeply held moral convictions without belief in a god. Personal preference or political opposition alone is insufficient: the conviction must have a depth and moral significance comparable to religious belief.

Secular humanism grounds ethics in reason, compassion and human experience rather than divine authority. It does not require opposition to technology.

Dorman approached the university’s equal opportunities office in late August with help from the association’s lawyers. He said he was inspired by Erin Maus, a software engineer belonging to a liberal religious community in the United States, whose employer granted her a conscience-based AI exemption in May that year.

The association stresses that humanists can reach different conclusions. A declaration adopted by humanist organisations internationally in 2025 recognised AI’s potential benefits while insisting that judgement and responsibility remain human. Pope Leo XIV has also warned of threats from uncontrolled use, including harm to human dignity, concentrated power and greater inequality, without advocating a boycott.

The practical distinction in Dorman’s case is narrow but consequential: his convictions protect him from being required to use AI personally, while leaving his obligation to work alongside those who do intact.