ambiguities existed and faculty exercised subjectivity in handling this reassignment. 17. I believe that in transposition of grades, some faculty prejudicially exercised their discretion to the disadvantage of certain students. • 18. In my classes ... I would, as I felt necessary, modify the syllabi in a manner that I felt was in keeping with students’ progress. (Romeo aff.) Defendants contend that paragraphs 15,16, and 17 are not based on Romeo’s personal knowledge and contain subjective opinions. Affidavits must be made on personal knowledge. Fed.Rule 56(c). Beliefs do not meet the evidentiary standard set forth in Rule 56(e). Totman v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government, 391 Fed.Appx. 454 (6th Cir.2010) (citing Alpert v. United States, 481 F.3d 404, 409 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>)). Courts outside this Circuit have likewise
holding that the affidavit in question did not satisfy the burden of the party moving for summary judgment where affiants eonclusory statement failed to indicate personal knowledge of the circumstances in question and personal knowledge could not be reasonably inferred from the contents of the affidavit holding that the affiants statement  based upon his belief  did not demonstrate the personal knowledge required by fedrcivp 56e holding that rule 56e requires that summary judgment affidavits be based upon personal knowledge contain admissible evidence and affirmatively demonstrate the competency of the affiant to testify as to the matters contained therein holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court at the summary judgment stage to consider information from an affidavit based on inadmissible hearsay rather than the affiants personal knowledge holding that plaintiffs may plead on information and belief if matters are not within their personal knowledge