Implicit bias is extremely hard to argue in the absence of other examples of racist behavior. In the court of public opinion, well. I think you're doing well as a baseline if the only arguments someone can make are about implicit bias. An accusation of implicit bias is far easier to defend against than one of racial abuse.

Not sure that's true. An allegation of racial abuse you defend against by saying "I did not do that", hopefully with evidence on your side (other people were at the meeting, maybe).

But how do you defend against implicit bias? "No, I'm not"? In the current climate, I'm not sure that saves your public image...

You can always claim not to have acted with bias but if there’s strong evidence that you did then I’m not sure how one is supposed to defend against it, in an informal sense (IANAL). I would just admit it, make amends, and try to move on.

But if there's strong evidence that you acted with bias, then isn't that evidence of explicit bias? I'm not even sure what strong evidence of implicit bias would look like.

Anybody can accuse you of anything, it’s true, but accusations of racism without specific allegations of racist behaviours or actions are rarely reported in NYT.

The NYT? After the Trump presidency? Here is a helpful attack article they wrote about an issue that turned out not to involve any particular racial undertones [0] - although you wouldn't figure that out from the NYT reporting. They aren't known for being careful before calling people racist with light evidence. Another good example of 'nobody has any examples of you being racist' being nowhere near enough to keep a reputation intact too.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/us/covington-catholic-hig...

As a non-white person, I generally regard people that wear those hats the same way I treat people who wear confederate paraphernalia - from a safe distance far away.